Sugarabibi Wd/O Noormohammed ... vs Vijay Vallabh Sarvajanik Hospital on 24 March, 2022
1. B.V. Smitha Rani v. M.K.Girish, reported in (2009) 17
SCC 660;
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.75 seconds)Documents citing
B.V.Smitha Rani vs M.K.Girish on 20 July, 2009
Sheetla Prasad (U/A-227) vs District Judge, Gonda & Others on 11 February, 2020
In B.V. Smitha Rani v. M.K. Girish, (2009) 17 SCC 660, despite opportunity the counsel for the respondent did not cross examine the appellant and the Family Court closed the opportunity of the respondent in the said case to lead evidence. The High Court remanded the matter and granted one more opportunity to the respondent to cross examine the appellant. The Apex Court set aside the order passed by High Court and held as under:
Smt. Rina Bhattacharjee & Ors vs Malay Bhattacharjee on 16 December, 2019
The petitioners filed an application for recalling of the said
order which the learned trial Judge after taking into
consideration of the said conduct of the petitioners and the said
direction of this Court has dismissed by the order impugned.
The course adopted by the learned trial Judge is fortified by
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.V.
SMITHA RANI Vs. M.K. GIRISH reported in (2009) 17 SCC 660.
This Court therefore does not find any reason to interfere with
the order impugned.
Mohanlal Agarwal vs Mahesh Chandra Agarwal on 5 January, 2016
Per contra, Shri V.K. Bhardwaj, learned senior
counsel for the respondents/landlord, contends that the
conduct of the petitioner/defendant has not been above
board in the matter of cooperation for expeditious
disposal of the suit. It is contended that as many as nine
opportunities, viz. on 3/3/2014, 10/4/2014, 27/11/2014,
23/1/2015, 24/2/2015, 12/3/2015, 11/4/2015, 19/6/2015
and 14/9/2015, have so far been afforded to the
defendant/tenant for cross-examination. Though cross-
examination was conducted, but in piece-mill and the
same has stretched over a period of one year, as the
affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC was filed on
21/8/2013 and up-till 14/9/2015 the cross-examination
was not completed. Such recourse of dilatory tactics of
avoidance of completion of cross-examination has led to
unreasonable delay in disposal of the eviction suit.
Therefore, considering the conduct of the
defendant/petitioner, no indulgence is warranted.
Learned Senior Counsel relies upon the judgment of the
3 Writ Petition No.7352/2015
(Mohanlal Agarwal vs. Mahesh Chandra Agarwal and others)
Supreme Court in the case of B.V. Smitha Rani vs. M.K.
Girish, (2009) 17 SCC 660 to bolster his submissions.
1