My question is
What is correct/settled position of law as to ‘introducing documents/exhibits while cross examining the opposite side’s witness (either the opposite party to suit or other witnesses of opposite side) ?
My belief is that ONLY the Respondent/Defendent (against whom the liability is alleged) in any original trial are protected from unfair 'surprises' (new documents/exhibits during cross) ................ BUT plaintiffs are NOT protected against any surprises, as plaintiffs are supposed to be aware of "facts of case and subject matter" and are expected "not to be surprised about their own grievances/contentions (alleged rights accrued).
The situation is as follows:
Plaintiff's evidence stage is going on …
-
Plaintiff has given Exam in chief.
-
Now, the current status is as follows:
§ Respondent is taking plaintiff's cross exam/confronting the Plaintiff in cross (i.e. plaintiff is being subjected to cross exam)
§ Respondent has a surprise document to expose 'vexacity of plaintiff'!!
§ I got only one case law so far of BOM HC (2011) which suggests 'plaintiff's mischief can be exposed' and there is NO need to publish ‘surprise’ document before hand else the plaintiff gets a clue as to what is comming!!!!
1. So Order 7 R 14, Order 8 R 1-A and Order 13 R 1, read together an exception is carved like Respondent is NOT using the abovesaid ‘surprise’ doc to support/prove Respondent’s plea but to demolish/disprove plaintiff's plea!!! and thus/hence there is no need to give notice /list of docs while filing WS vide Order 8 Rule 1-A, else the surprise element in cross examination would vanish. And it is as good as giving a list of 'likely questions in cross' in advance!!!!)
- But in support of above I request some more legal expert opinion, and some more guidance from experts, and also SC/ BOM HC cases laws.
- I have a few genuine doubts as well!!! as follows. Please comment on those. thanks in advance.
In regards to production of documents/list etc CPC provisions as ….
In Order 7 Rule 14, wording is as ‘…… plaintiff’s witnesses …….’
In Order 8 Rule 1-A, wording ALSO is ‘…… plaintiff’s witnesses …….’
(Both are referring to plaintiff’s witnesses)
In Order 13 Rule 1, wording is as ‘……witnesses of the other party ....’
(my question here is … what about ‘defendant’s witnesses’??? I thought initially there is a printing mistake in CPC bare act that I have, but it is not!!!!)
Thus, the Respondent wants to 'disprove' the plaintiff's version of facts and expose vexacity/mischief!
There is no such burden upon respondent, but respondent taking onus to do so. if plaintiff's version of 'facts' remain 'unproved' still it is sufficient.
Vide WS, the Respondent has not only explicitly denied "plaintiff's version of facts/incident" but also alleged a new "respondent's version of same facts/incidents" etc Whether Respondent's version of facts get proved or not is not a matter of concern (as there is no counter claim by respondent), if plaintiff's version of alleged facts get demolished, then there remains nothing in the case!
Please clarify my doubts as follows (I am confused after reading those case laws):
There is another BOM HC case law which says (as to O7 R14, O8 R 1-A & O13 R1):
“ …. there is distinction in the term witness and a party to the suit …”
“The party to the suit cannot be equated with the witness and cannot be confronted with a document by casting surprise upon him, particularly when the documents were not filed by the plaintiff along with the list of documents on which he is going to rely upon.”
