Need for Reform: The Context
India’s civil courts struggle with a large backlog of cases. A key reason lies in time-consuming procedures during the trial stage—especially recording of evidence. Earlier, judges wrote down depositions manually, which was slow and inefficient. Moreover, parties misused adjournments to prolong litigation.
To correct this, amendments were introduced focusing on:
- Delegating recording to commissioners.
- Promoting digital tools.
- Discouraging frivolous adjournments.
- Imposing stricter timelines.
Statutory Basis of Amendments
Several provisions underwent changes:
- Order XVIII Rules 4, 5, and 6
- Section 75 CPC (power to issue commissions)
- Linked provisions under Indian Evidence Act and Commercial Courts Act, 2015
These collectively redefine the way evidence is recorded.
Salient Features of Recent Amendments
1. Evidence-in-Chief through Affidavit
The amendment to Order XVIII Rule 4 mandates that the examination-in-chief must be filed via affidavit. This move saves judicial time and allows for early availability of witness testimony.
- The affidavit must contain facts personally known to the witness.
- Lawyers prepare these affidavits with precise references to documents.
This reduces courtroom time, as the court only records cross-examination and re-examination.
2. Commissioner for Recording Cross-Examination
To ease the burden on courts, the amendment permits cross-examination and re-examination before a commissioner appointed by the court.
- The judge appoints a commissioner who records the evidence outside the court.
- This provision reduces docket load and allows multiple cases to proceed simultaneously.
Rule 4(4) under Order XVIII empowers the court to direct this process where necessary.
3. Videography and Audio Recording of Evidence
One of the most progressive changes is the recognition of audio and video recordings during evidence recording. Courts may order such recordings in sensitive cases or high-value commercial disputes.
This step:
- Improves transparency.
- Preserves accuracy.
- Reduces disputes over what was actually said in court.
Commercial courts and tribunals have increasingly adopted this.
4. Discouragement of Adjournments
Amendments limit adjournments during cross-examination. Courts must now ensure:
- Parties complete the process within the allocated schedule.
- Unjustified delays result in cost penalties or adverse inference.
This deters tactics that aim to delay trials by stalling evidence stages.
5. Evidence in Commercial Disputes
The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 further supplements the CPC and introduces stringent timelines. Under Order XI-A and XII-A, commercial courts mandate:
- Witness statement affidavits
- Advance exchange of evidence
- Pre-trial discovery
Thus, recording of evidence in commercial cases follows stricter procedures and shorter deadlines.
6. Use of Technology and E-Courts
E-Courts Mission Mode Project has enabled digital infrastructure in courts. This includes:
- E-filing of affidavits and witness statements
- Virtual hearing for recording of evidence via video conferencing
- Scanned document repositories for speedy referencing
This technological reform works in harmony with procedural amendments, ensuring smoother recording of evidence.
7. Trial Management Hearings
Courts now hold case management hearings before trial begins. At this stage, the court:
- Fixes the number of witnesses allowed
- Determines sequence and deadlines
- Plans the evidence recording schedule
This was introduced under Order XV-A for commercial courts but now influences civil litigation more broadly.
Related Judicial Pronouncements
Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2003)
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of CPC amendments. It supported the use of commissioners for recording evidence and stated that this change promotes efficiency.
K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy (2011)
The Court reaffirmed that cross-examination by a commissioner is permissible unless prejudice is shown.
Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. v. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd. (2004)
The Court clarified that affidavits filed as evidence-in-chief must be confined to admissible facts only.
Benefits of These Amendments
- Time-saving: Courts spend less time in evidence recording.
- Cost-effective: Less courtroom time reduces legal expenses.
- Modernized Process: Technology-enabled evidence improves record-keeping.
- Prevention of Misuse: Strong deterrents against delaying tactics.
- Transparency: Videography prevents false interpretations.
Challenges Faced During Implementation
- Shortage of trained commissioners in rural areas.
- Reluctance by lawyers unfamiliar with affidavit-based evidence.
- Infrastructure gaps in district courts.
- Limited awareness among litigants.
These challenges demand better training, investment in digital tools, and public legal education.
Relevance for Legal Professionals
Every advocate must:
- Understand affidavit drafting techniques.
- Use court-appointed commissioners effectively.
- Ensure cross-examination remains concise and focused.
- Embrace digital platforms for presenting documentary and oral evidence.
Failing to adapt can lead to client dissatisfaction and poor trial outcomes.
Memory Code: “ACE-TV-CAM”
To remember the amendments, use the code ACE-TV-CAM. Here’s how it breaks down:
| Letter | Key Feature | Description |
|---|---|---|
| A | Affidavit of Evidence | Examination-in-chief via affidavit |
| C | Commissioner for Cross | Court can appoint commissioner for cross-examination |
| E | E-Court Tools | Use of e-filing, VC, digital documents |
| T | Trial Management | Case scheduling and witness control |
| V | Videography | Evidence recording through audio-video tools |
| C | Commercial Disputes Fast-Track | Strict timelines in commercial courts |
| A | Adjournments Discouraged | Limited and penalized adjournments |
| M | Manual Burden Reduced | Judges now free from manually recording all evidence |
