The Delhi High Court in Ravinder Suri & Ors. V. Dayawati (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs observed that merits of the rival stands cannot be a material consideration while examining whether a particular question that the party desires to pose to a witness is relevant or irrelevant.
The Court heavily relied on R.K.Chandolia v. CBI where the entire jurisdictional scheme in the matter of recording of evidence stands classically digested. Relevant portions of the judgment are as below:-
“Under Section 136, the Judge has not only to satisfy that the evidence that was to be led was relevant but, in what manner if proved, would be relevant. It was only if he was satisfied that the evidence, if proved, would be relevant, that he could admit the same. If it is his duty to admit all the relevant evidence, it is no less his duty to exclude all irrelevant evidence……… From this, it comes out to be that the Judge is empowered to allow only such evidence to be given as is, in his opinion, relevant and admissible and in order to ascertain the relevancy of the evidence which a party proposes to give, he may ask the party, in what manner, if evidence proved, would be relevant and, he may then decide as to its admissibility. In fact, the question of relevancy is of great nicety and sometimes, great difficulty is felt by the Trial Judge in deciding question of relevancy. Therefore, it is desired that in doubtful cases, he should admit rather than excluding the evidence……”
Section 137 gives a statutory right to the adverse party to cross-examine a witness….. Under this Section, the cross-examination can go beyond the facts narrated in examination-in-chief, but all such questions must relate to relevant facts. It is not that under the right of cross examination, the party will have the right to ask reckless, irrelevant, random and fishing questions to oppress the witness. The “relevant facts” in cross examination of course have a wider meaning than the term when applied to examination-in-chief. For instance, facts though otherwise irrelevant may involve questions affecting the credit of a witness, and such questions are permissible in the cross examination as per Section 146 and 153 but, questions manifestly irrelevant or not intended to contradict or qualify the statements in examination-in-chief, or, which do not impeach the credit of a witness, cannot be allowed in cross examination. It is well-established rule of evidence that a party should put to each of a witness so much of a case as concerns that particular witness….”
“If it appears to the Judge that the question is vexatious and not relevant to any matter, he must disallow such a question. Even for the purpose of impeaching his credit by contradicting him, the witness cannot be put to an irrelevant question in the cross examination. However, if the question is relevant to the issue, the witness is bound to answer the same and cannot take an excuse of such a question to be criminating…”
Therefore, in light of the above, the Court categorically observed that the power of the Court to disallow questions which are irrelevant, therefore, cannot be gainsaid. Relevance or irrelevance, it merits reiteration, are to be decided on the basis of the controversy before the court, and the points on which the parties join issue. All aspects on which the parties join issue are part of the controversy before the court. The merits of the rival stands cannot be a material consideration while examining whether a particular question that the party desires to pose to a witness is relevant or irrelevant. Relevance or irrelevance is to be decided by juxtaposing the question that is being sought to be put with the pleadings of the parties and their rival stands before the court, and not with respect to the merits of such stands.