New facts and evidence - better to bring out in cross exam?

first discuss with your client and you may some more evidences

Dear,

It is well settled position of the law that, you can not bring, produce or admit any material document or evidence at the stage of cross examination. The documents or information only to be admitted for the fresh reminders to the witnesses at the time of cross examination.

So it is better to apply to the court for the amendment of Written Statement/Reply and furnish the statement/new information with you availed recently in your reply.

Regards

Kishor Hajare/9930647734/hajare.kishor@rediffmail.com 

The materical documents are documents suppressed by the plaintiffs! Basically letters exchanged between them and the Soociety. So why can it not be brought during cross examination? 

Thanks for your response :)

Yes,you may brought the relevant documents for refreshing the memory of witness u/s 159 of Evidence Act

S. 159. Refreshing memory

A witness may, while under examination, refresh his memory by referring to any writing

made by himself at the time of the transaction concerning which he is questioned, or so

soon afterwards that the Court considers it likely that the transaction was at that time

fresh in his memory.

The witness may also refer to any such writing made by any other person, and read by

the witness within the time aforesaid, if when he read it he knew it to be correct.

When witness may use copy of document to refresh memory- Whenever a witness may

refresh his memory by reference to any document, he may, with the permission of the

Court, refer to a copy of such document:

Provided the Court be satisfied that there is sufficient reason for the non – production of

the original.

An expert may refresh his memory by reference to professional treatises.

Experts:
good discussion and i have question

During cross, the plaintiff UNDER OATH will say a lot of things (read LIES). Now is it not better

to just question and let the plaintiff bluff first.

THEN

During evidence, you produce the material witness to disprove/refute plaintiff's statem? Is there a disadvantage in

this strategy?  Clearly if you warn the plaintiff during cross thathe is caught, he may prepare something else by evidence

stage.

 During cross, the plaintiff UNDER OATH will say a lot of things (read LIES). Now is it not better

to just question and let the plaintiff bluff first.

You can always confront him with evidence to prove he is lying during cross itself.  

THEN

During evidence, you produce the material witness to disprove/refute plaintiff's statem? Is there a disadvantage in this strategy? Clearly if you warn the plaintiff during cross thathe is caught, he may prepare something else by evidence stage.

•  
• If you have already proved that he has lied  during cross examination then how can there be any disadvantage? His lies have already been recorded, so what can he do?.  Unless ofcourse he was really speaking the truth then yes, he can bring in additional evidence and witnesses to prove the truth.
•  

 Remember - it is easier to prove a lie than to disprove a truth.

@author - thanks. my main idea was revealing the truth closest to judgement point, so there is very little room for

mischief.

@goyal sir -

Refreshing Memory - I must say WOW.

I completely agree that an expert (including advocates) may refer to journals etc. to refresh their memory.

but

There are few types of people who are intentional compulsive

liars (or worse, Pathalogical Liars).If everything can be attributed to Refreshing Memory,

where is the offence of lying under oath? To extrapolate, a false written statement can also

later withdrawn saying memory lapse? Is that equivalent to Insanity and any statements

(except an act itself) can be withdrawn or changed depending upon the outcome?

Pls help me understand, appreciate your time.