Introduction
You serve notice demanding your opponent hand over a document. They comply. You inspect it — and the contents cut against you more than they help. Can you simply set it aside, act as though you never looked, and carry on with your case as originally planned?
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), the answer is no — and Section 166, sitting in Chapter X ("Of the Examination of Witnesses"), is the provision that stops you. It governs the cooperative half of a notice-to-produce exchange: what happens once the other side actually hands over the document you asked for. This article explains the binding effect Section 166 creates, how it differs from the refusal scenario covered by its sibling provision (Section 167), and why the rule exists to stop a party from using inspection as a one-way street.
166. Giving, as evidence, of document called for and produced on notice.
When a party calls for a document which he has given the other party notice to produce, and such document is produced and inspected by the party calling for its production, he is bound to give it as evidence if the party producing it requires him to do so.
Section 166 Explained: Looking Comes With a Price
A notice to produce is a formal demand: one party tells the other, in advance, to have a specific document ready at trial. It exists so that a litigant is not ambushed by surprise paperwork and can prepare to meet it. But the mechanism only works if both sides play it straight — and Section 166 is the rule that keeps the party issuing the notice honest.
Once you have called for a document and the other side has actually produced it, you are not entitled to a free look. If you inspect it, you cannot then decide the document doesn't suit your case and quietly drop the subject. The producing party has a statutory right to insist that you go ahead and tender it as evidence — turning your own request into an obligation.
The Mechanics: How the Binding Effect Is Triggered
Section 166 does not activate automatically the moment paper changes hands. A specific sequence has to play out, and each link in that chain matters.
Worked Example: A Loan Agreement Backfires
Consider a commercial dispute where a lender, Party A, sues to recover money allegedly owed under a loan agreement. Party A serves notice on the borrower, Party B, to produce the signed agreement, expecting it to confirm the repayment terms A is relying on.
Without Section 166, Party A could have used the notice purely as a reconnaissance tool — inspect the document, learn what it contains, and then argue the case as if that inspection never happened. The section closes exactly that gap.
Section 166 vs. Section 167: Two Sides of the Same Notice
Section 166 was not drafted in isolation — it is the direct counterpart to Section 167, the very next provision, which deals with what happens when the other side refuses to produce a document on notice instead of complying. Reading the two together shows the drafting logic clearly: a party cannot control the outcome of a notice-to-produce exchange purely to its own advantage, whichever way the exchange goes.
| Scenario | Governing Section | Who Ends Up Bound |
|---|---|---|
| Document produced and inspected | Section 166, BSA | The party who called for it — bound to tender it in evidence if the producer insists. |
| Document withheld despite notice | Section 167, BSA | The party who withheld it — permanently barred from using it in that proceeding. |
The symmetry is deliberate. Section 167 stops a party from hiding a document and springing it later once it's convenient. Section 166 stops the mirror-image tactic — calling for a document, inspecting it, and then disowning it because the contents turned out to be unhelpful. Between the two sections, a notice to produce cannot be used as a one-sided information-gathering tool by either party.
Who Section 166 Actually Affects
The provision shapes pre-trial and trial strategy for anyone dealing with a notice to produce:
- Litigants issuing a notice should be confident they actually want to see the document before calling for it — inspection is not a risk-free preview once the other side is willing to hand it over.
- Parties responding to a notice gain a real strategic option: producing the document and then insisting the calling party use it can turn a demand for disclosure back on the party who made it.
- Trial judges need to track whether inspection actually occurred and whether the producing party has exercised its right to require the document be tendered, since the obligation depends on both.
- Appellate counsel reviewing a trial record should check whether a document that helped one side was originally called for — and inspected — by the opponent, since that history can matter to how it entered evidence.
- Drafting lawyers preparing a notice should weigh this rule before sending one — a notice to produce is a commitment to deal with the document's contents, not a cost-free way to find out what the other side is holding.
Key Takeaways
- Inspection carries consequences: once you call for a document and inspect it after it's produced, you may be bound to use it as evidence.
- The choice belongs to the producer: the calling party is only bound if the party who produced the document actually insists on it — the obligation is not automatic.
- It is the mirror image of Section 167: Section 166 governs cooperative production; Section 167 governs refusal. Together they prevent either side from gaming a notice-to-produce exchange.
- Strategic value cuts both ways: producing a helpful document can force it into evidence through the opponent's own hand, which is a genuine tactical tool for the party who receives the notice.
- Notices to produce are not risk-free previews: issuing one commits you to dealing with whatever the response turns out to be.
Conclusion
Section 166 closes a gap that would otherwise let a party treat a notice to produce as a one-way window — demand a look, inspect freely, and discard whatever doesn't help. By binding the calling party to the document once the producing party insists, it forces both sides of the exchange to live with the consequences of asking.
Read alongside Section 167, it completes a simple, symmetrical rule: whichever way a notice to produce plays out, the party who tried to control the outcome after the fact — whether by hiding a document or disowning one — is the party the BSA holds to account. For litigants, the practical lesson is the same one that runs through this whole chapter of the Adhiniyam: procedural tools like a notice to produce cut both ways, and the law expects both sides to live with what they set in motion.