Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.04 seconds)
Rajesh Dua vs Rajiv Goyal & Anr. on 23 January, 2024 cites

Arjun Singh vs Mohindra Kumar & Ors on 13 December, 1963

―9. On consideration, we are of the opinion that once the matter has been finally heard and posted for judgment, as held by the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh's case (supra) nothing is required to be done by the Court except to pronounce the judgment, and therefore the decision in Laxminarayan Enterprises case is not helpful. Admittedly, Clause (4) of Order 18 Rule 2, of CPC has been deleted and therefore the respondent-plaintiff cannot take advantage of Laxmin Arayan's case in the facts of the given case. Even if we assume it for the sake of argument without accepting, in view of the amendment in CPC, as we find, the law relating to procedure in suits and civil proceedings are governed by CPC. The CPC has been amended from time to time. Recently also, in order to cut short the delays at various levels in disposal of civil cases, CPC was amended by the Amendment Act of 1999 with effect from 1.7,2002. In the facts of the given case, sufficient opportunity was given to the plaintiff to complete his evidence, but he has Signature Not Verified C.R.P. 271/2023 and other connected matter Digitally Signed By:SARIKA BHAMOO VERMA Page 55 of 61 Signing Date:24.01.2024 16:37:03 not availed the opportunity at appropriate time and thereafter his evidence was closed. The case was fixed for defendant's evidence and ultimately the case was heard and reserved for judgment on 20.6.2001. In our view, if the matter is reserved for pronouncement of judgment, such an application is not maintainable as otherwise it will defeat the very object of amendment in speedy disposal of the cases.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 672 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

K.K. Velusamy vs N. Palaanisamy on 30 March, 2011

9. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of K.K. Velusamy (supra) was dealing with the scope of Order 18 Rule 17, C.P.C. read with Section 151 thereof. In that case the two applications, one under Section 151, C.P.C. and another under Order 18 Rule 17, C.P.C. were filed with prayer to re-open the evidence and to recall P.Ws.1 and 2 for cross-examination when the arguments were in progress. Those petitions having been rejected by the Trial Court and the High Court concerned, the matter was brought before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court, ruling on the scope and ambit of Section 151, C.P.C. by referring to a number of judgments, in paragraph 16 of the judgment held thus : -
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 551 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Ram Rati vs Mange Ram (D) Thr Lrs. & Ors on 23 February, 2016

―..One application is filed on behalf of defendant for permission to cross examine the plaintiff witness and it is stated that application filed for adjournment on the last date of hearing is still pending. The application was filed for adjournment of the matter after the matter was taken up for hearing and was adjourned for today after conducting the Signature Not Verified C.R.P. 271/2023 and other connected matter Digitally Signed By:SARIKA BHAMOO VERMA Page 28 of 61 Signing Date:24.01.2024 16:37:03 proceedings. On the last date of hearing plaintiff no. 1 was present for his examination and Sh. Prashant Solanki appeared for the defendant and during the tendering of the affidavit of the witness, he left the court without intimation. The witness was discharged. It is stated that the defence of the defendant is struck off vide order dated 09.01.2023 so the defendant is not having any rights to cross examine the witness. The reliance is placed by the counsel for the plaintiff on K. K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy (2011) sec 275 and Ram Rati Vs. Mange Ram (D) through LRs and Others AIR 2016 SC 1343.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 133 - Full Document

Niranjan Kumar vs Smt. Poonam Chawla on 18 November, 2006

13. It is further submitted that the cross-examination in the present case is necessary in order to test the testimony advanced by the respondent and to prove the petitioner's case. The facts in question are required to be cross- examined to establish the truth which will lead to proper adjudication of the suit. The denial of the same to the petitioner is arbitrary and against the settled principles of law. To strengthen his arguments, the learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 18th November, 2006, passed in the matter titled as Niranjan Kumar versus Poonam Chawla, CM (M) No.3167/2005, wherein, it has been held that as per the law nothing precludes a party from confronting a witness in cross-examination.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 10 - S K Kaul - Full Document
1   2 3 Next