AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 289 wordsBhaskar Raj Pradhan, J
1 These four writ petitions raises identical questions. Applications under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) were moved by the petitioners in pending trials for production of the affidavit in evidence of the respondent no.1’s son in another trial. The applications were rejected by the impugned orders.
Order VII Rule 14 (3) CPC is very clear. The documents sought to be produced by the parties must be those documents which they seek to sue or rely upon.
Admittedly, the necessary pleading is not available in the plaints with regard to the affidavit in evidence or the contents thereof. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he filed the present writ petitions as it was felt that he could not use this evidence on affidavit during the trial of the present case. However, it is submitted that he has now read the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Abdul Wahid vs. Nilofer & Anr. (2024) 2 SCC 144 and is satisfied that he could use the evidence on affidavit during the course of the cross-examination of the respondent no.1 which is yet to begin as the defendants have only filed the evidence on affidavit at this stage. He seeks to cross examine the respondent no.1 on all matters including evidence on affidavit of the son of the respondent no.1. Accordingly, the petitioners desires to withdraw the writ petitions which is allowed with liberty to cross examine the respondent no.1 on all matters as is permissible under the law including putting the evidence on affidavit of the respondent no.1’s son to the respondent no.1.
All four writ petitions stands disposed of accordingly.