This is an important procedural question, and the answer requires distinguishing between different types of proceedings, since the role of affidavit evidence varies considerably depending on whether you're dealing with interim applications, summary proceedings, or a full civil trial regarding property rights in Mumbai. For interim applications — such as applications for temporary injunction, appointment of a receiver, or other interlocutory relief under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — courts routinely and properly decide these based substantially on affidavit evidence submitted by the parties, since interim relief by its nature requires a prima facie assessment rather than the complete evidentiary rigor of full trial.

However, for the final and conclusive determination of substantive property rights — such as who holds valid title, whether a document should be declared void, or how a partition should be finally implemented — Indian civil procedure generally requires oral evidence through examination and cross-examination of witnesses, not merely affidavit evidence alone, precisely because cross-examination serves as the fundamental mechanism through which the truth and reliability of evidence is properly tested before the court. Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure governs the recording of evidence in civil suits, and while examination-in-chief can now be submitted through affidavit under certain amended provisions to expedite trials, the crucial requirement of cross-examination on that affidavit evidence remains mandatory for the evidence to carry full evidentiary weight in the final decision.

This means even where a party's affidavit contains their examination-in-chief, the opposing party retains the absolute right to cross-examine that witness regarding the contents of their affidavit, and it is this cross-examination process — testing the witness's account under questioning — that ultimately determines how much weight the court gives to that evidence in reaching its final judgment. A property case cannot be finally decided purely on the basis of affidavits filed by both sides without this crucial testing process, except in specific limited circumstances such as certain summary suit procedures or where both parties genuinely consent to have the matter decided on the documentary and affidavit record alone.

Where a party attempts to prevent proper cross-examination, or where a court proceeds to a final decision without allowing adequate opportunity for testing affidavit evidence through cross-examination, this constitutes a serious procedural irregularity that provides strong grounds for challenging the resulting judgment on appeal, since denial of the fundamental right to test opposing evidence through cross-examination strikes at the core principles of natural justice and fair trial.

Given how the proper role of affidavit evidence differs significantly between interim and final proceedings, understanding this distinction helps you navigate your Mumbai property case strategically at each stage. Our legal experts at Aapka Legal Advice ensure proper evidentiary procedure is followed at every stage of your property litigation. The Top Property Lawyers in Mumbai team has successfully challenged judgments where proper cross-examination procedure was denied, supported by a panel of retired judges with deep procedural expertise and criminal lawyers for related matters. If you're concerned about how affidavit evidence is being handled in your Mumbai property case, understanding your right to proper cross-examination is essential to protecting your case's integrity.