Skip to main content

Discovery and Inspection in a Civil Suit

 Discovery and Inspection in a Civil Suit 


Documents:

  • Every party is entitled to know the nature of the opponent’s case, so at the time of hearing, one is prepared. 

  • One is entitled to obtain admissions and facilitate the proof one his own. 

  • Rules while conducting discovery and inspection:

  • One can ask for inspection and the other party is bound to disclose all material facts which constitute the case but not evidential facts. 

  • One can ask for inspection for all documents in possession of the party which relate to the matter in question in the suit irrespective of whether they are for or against the case. 

  • Discovery can be made through interrogates. 

    • Interrogatories are question that one party administers to another in writing and they are administered only by leave of court. 

    • Interrogatories are not for cross examination, they are to substantiate the facts to fill in the gaps. 

    • The other party is bound to answer the interrogatories by way of affidavits unless they raise objections on the ground of irrelevance, self incrimination, scandalous questions etc. 

    • The question can be obliterated only by a court order. 

    • All interrogatories are to be answered within 10 days of service and if there are further objections, they are to be raised within 7 days of service.

  • After the interrogatory stage is over, the court may call upon the parties to file their affidavit  of documents i.e. the documents upon which one relies (Order XI Rule 13). Once affidavit  of documents is filed, the other party is entitled to go in for an inspection of the documents listed in the affidavit.

  • Inspection of affidavit  of documents is important:

  • To ascertain what documents’ existence can be denied or admitted. 

  • Gives the opportunity to go through the content of the documents that the other side is relying on. 

  • To ascertain the relevancy of the documents. 

  • Next step is to prepare a statement of admission and denial where one tells the court which documents are admitted and which ones are denied. 

  • One gives a notice to his adversary to admit certain facts or documents which he wants to rely upon.  However, if no such admission is made by the adversary where it ought to have been made, he will be liable to pay the costs for proving the document (Order XII Rule 2-5).  This refers to those common document which both the parties are relying upon.

  • One can call upon the adversary by making an application before the court for production of documents which are in his possession. For production of documents, witnesses etc. one relied upon Order 11, 12 and 16.

  • Documents which are commonly admitted are not put to try. Whereas, documents which are not admitted are put to trial and are required to be proved. 


Witnesses:

  • A list of witnesses one wants to summon is submitted to the court and a notice is also to be sent to the witnesses informing them about the date, time, court they are required to be present at to give their evidence. 

  • Affidavit of statement in chief is required to be filed for each witness.  

  • A witness ideally has to come before the court on the date of cross examination. If the witness fails, absconds or denies to do so, then court can call upon the witness to be present to give his evidence. If the witness does not answer the summon either, then the court will issue a proclamation requiring him to attend and at the same time, the court may also issue a warrant of his arrest or attachment of property (exemptions mentioned in Sec. 60 of CPC).

  • If the witness does not come until the warrant is issued, on appearing he has to satisfy the court that there was sufficient cause for him to not be in a position to answer the summons and come earlier. 

  • The court may order for property to be released from attachment once he appears and if he does not, the court may impose fine and order the attached property to be sold for payment of the fine. 

  • Costs with regard to issue of summons is to be borne by the party calling the witness. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree