Documents relevant to pleadings may be produced during cross-examination to confront witnesses without prior leave.

The respondents (plaintiffs) filed a suit for the cancellation of three sale deeds and a rectification deed, alleging they were executed by the petitioner (defendant no. 1) using a cancelled power of attorney without consideration.

In his written statement, the petitioner pleaded that Rs. 5 Lakhs was paid as consideration and receipts were issued.

After his application to amend the pleadings to include specific receipt particulars was rejected, the petitioner filed an application (Exhibit 117) to produce these receipts to confront plaintiff no. 1 during cross-examination.

The trial court rejected the application, leading to this Writ Petition.

Whether a party to a suit (plaintiff or defendant) can be confronted with documents during cross-examination that were not produced at the time of filing pleadings or settlement of issues.

Whether the production of documents for the purpose of cross-examination is permissible only if the documents are "outside the case" of the parties.

The court applied Order VII Rule 14(4), Order VIII Rule 1A(4), and Order XIII Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which provide an exception to the mandatory pre-trial production of documents when such documents are used for the cross-examination of a witness or to refresh memory.

It further relied on Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), which allows a witness to be cross-examined on previous statements in writing relevant to the matters in question.

Crucially, the court followed the Supreme Court precedent in *Mohammed Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer* (2024), which established that for evidentiary purposes, "party-witnesses" and "witnesses-simpliciter" are on the same footing, and documents not "foreign to the pleadings" can be produced during cross-examination.

The court reasoned that while the CPC requires parties to disclose documents relied upon at the earliest stage to prevent surprise, the law explicitly carves out exceptions for cross-examination to ensure a fair trial.

It clarified that the prior interpretation in *Laxmikant Sinal Lotlekar*, suggesting only "outside-the-case" documents could be produced, is no longer binding in light of the Supreme Court's decision in *Mohammed Abdul Wahid*.

Since the petitioner had already pleaded the factum of payment in his written statement, the receipts were not "foreign to the pleadings".

The court further noted that the rejection of an amendment application does not bar the use of a document for the limited purpose of contradicting a witness under Section 145 of the Evidence Act.

It held that a party has a right to confront an opposite party appearing as a witness with documents during cross-examination, provided the documents are relevant to the pleadings, even if they were not produced earlier.

The trial court was directed to permit the petitioner to produce the documents (as per Exhibit 118) to confront plaintiff no. 1 during his cross-examination.