The Delhi High Court upheld a trial court order allowing the plaintiff to submit additional ownership documents during cross-examination, ruling that the defendants’ own questioning created the necessity. The Court stressed strategic restraint in cross-examination.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging a trial court order that permitted a plaintiff to place additional documents on record under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The ruling, delivered by Justice Girish Kathpalia, reinforces the principle that courts must prevent technicalities from obstructing substantive justice, especially when documents arise after suit filing and are necessary for fair adjudication.
This case also highlights an important lesson in litigation strategy: questions asked during cross-examination can sometimes backfire, a fact Justice Kathpalia emphasized with the notable remark,
“Cross-examination is not what to ask, but what not to ask.”
Case Background
The original suit was instituted on September 28, 2021, and issues were framed on October 20, 2022. At that point, the ownership documents now in question did not yet exist. The conveyance deed was executed on September 27, 2023, and registered on October 11, 2023, followed by supporting documents, including a registration fee receipt dated October 8, 2023, and a municipal tax receipt dated October 6, 2023.
The plaintiff later applied under Order VII Rule 14 CPC in November 2024, seeking permission to place these documents on record. The defendants objected, arguing that the delay was unjustified and that the plaintiff could have submitted the documents immediately upon their creation.
Issue
The core legal question before the High Court was:
Did the trial court err by allowing the plaintiff to file ownership-related documents at the stage of cross-examination, even though the documents came into existence after the suit and framing of issues?
The High Court answered No, upholding the trial court’s decision and finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated August 19, 2025.
Arguments by the Defendants
Counsel for the petitioners contended that the trial court’s order was legally unsustainable. They insisted that the plaintiff had offered no explanation for the one-year delay in bringing the documents on record and argued that permitting them at the cross-examination stage prejudiced their case.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court rejected the petitioners’ objections, noting that the documents undeniably did not exist at the time the suit was filed or when issues were framed. Justice Kathpalia placed substantial weight on an exchange during cross-examination, in which the defendants challenged the plaintiff’s ownership by suggesting that no documents establishing title had been filed. The plaintiff responded that he possessed all documents necessary to prove ownership.
The Court observed that this line of questioning created a situation in which the plaintiff was compelled to bring the documents on record to avoid an adverse inference. Justice Kathpalia made an important remark regarding courtroom strategy, stating:
“The cross-examination is not what to ask, but what not to ask.”
He added that the defendants themselves created the necessity for the filing, and therefore could not object to the consequences.
The High Court held that the trial court committed no error in permitting the filing of the ownership documents at the cross-examination stage and upheld the order dated August 19, 2025. The petition and connected applications were dismissed, and no notice was issued.
Case Title:
KANCHAN SAINI & ANR. versus SHIV KUMAR
CM(M) 2293/2025, CM APPL. 74343/2025 & CM APPL. 74342/2025
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Cross-Examination
