Documents relevant for cross-examination must be summoned during plaintiff’s evidence stage to ensure proper adjudication.

The Respondent No. 1 (Plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration seeking to nullify a power of attorney (dated 31.01.2013) and a subsequent sale deed (dated 30.01.2014) as fraudulent and forged

The Plaintiff asserted that although her photograph appeared on the bank account opening form where the sale consideration was deposited, she neither opened nor operated the account and that her signatures were forged

Defendant No. 1 (Petitioner) filed an application under Order 16 Rule 6 of the CPC seeking production of bank records, including CCTV footage and withdrawal vouchers, to prove the Plaintiff operated the account.

The Trial Court rejected the application on 17.01.2026, holding it premature as the case was at the stage of plaintiff evidence and could be renewed during defendant evidence

1. Whether an application under Order 16 Rule 6 of the CPC for summoning bank records can be allowed during the stage of plaintiff evidence if the documents are required for cross-examination

2. Whether all requested materials, including CCTV footage from 2014, meet the threshold of relevance for production under the CPC

The Court applied Order 16 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which governs the summoning of persons to produce documents

It further utilized the inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to ensure the ends of justice

The core legal principle applied is that documents necessary for confronting a witness during cross-examination to establish the veracity of their claims (specifically regarding the operation of a disputed bank account) are relevant and should be available at the stage of that witness's evidence

The Court reasoned that if the Plaintiff disowns the bank account, evidence of her withdrawing money via cheques or vouchers is crucial to determining the suit's outcome

It found the Trial Court's observation—that the application was premature—to be flawed because the petitioner needed these documents specifically to "confront" the Plaintiff during her evidence stage

If the Plaintiff indeed withdrew funds, she cannot legally disown the account

However, the Court limited the scope of the production, finding that while withdrawal records are relevant for cross-examination, other materials like CCTV footage from 2014 are not necessary at this stage or may not be reasonably available

It held that the application under Order 16 Rule 6 was not premature regarding withdrawal records. The Court directed the Trial Court to summon specific records (cheques and withdrawal forms) for Account No. 50157566349 at Indian Bank, BHEL Branch, Bhopal, provided such records are still traceable

The request for CCTV footage and other materials was denied