Kishan Chand vs Banwarilal on 16 May, 2000
In Ganpat Chand v. Jeth Mal , this Court while interpreting Rule 10 of Order 8 CPC made the following observations:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.25 seconds)Documents citing
Ganpat Chand vs Jeth Mal on 21 October, 1982
Shyam Murmu vs Raska Tuddu And Ors. on 28 November, 2006
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that even by filing written statement, defendant has every right to lead evidence by examining witnesses and by proving documents. Learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Patna High Court in the Case of "Siai Sinha v. Shivadhari Sinha and Ors." , in the case of "Bindeshari Kamkar and Ors. v. Radha Tiwari and Ors." and in the case of "Ganpat Chand v. Jeth Mal" .
Nazir vs Ramjan & Ors on 20 September, 2013
Contesting the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, it was submitted by learned counsel for the respondents-defendants that the judgment impugned passed by the First Appellate Court does not call for any interference. It was submitted that the order dated 30.04.2008 passed by the trial court permitting the defendants to produce documents under the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1A(3) CPC was a farce, inasmuch as, even if, the said documents were filed by the defendants, in absence of opportunity to prove the said documents by leading evidence, the said documents would have been mere piece of papers and could not have been looked into by the Court. It was further submitted that the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ganpat Chand (supra) was not at all dealt with by the trial court and rather a order contrary to the said judgment had been passed and, consequently, the First Appellate Court was justified in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and remand the matter to the trial court so as to comply with the requirements of law laid down by this Court in the case of Ganpat Chand (supra).
Nazir vs Mugal Mohd on 20 September, 2013
Contesting the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, it was submitted by learned counsel for the respondent-defendant that the judgment impugned passed by the First Appellate Court does not call for any interference. It was submitted that the order dated 30.04.2008 passed by the trial court permitting the defendant to produce documents under the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1A(3) CPC was a farce, inasmuch as, even if, the said documents were filed by the defendant, in absence of opportunity to prove the said documents by leading evidence, the said documents would have been mere piece of papers and could not have been looked into by the Court. It was further submitted that the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ganpat Chand (supra) was not at all dealt with by the trial court and rather a order contrary to the said judgment had been passed and, consequently, the First Appellate Court was justified in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and remand the matter to the trial court so as to comply with the requirements of law laid down by this Court in the case of Ganpat Chand (supra).
1