Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (3.85 seconds)
Mohammed Abdul Wahid vs Nilofer on 14 December, 2023 cites

The State Of Bombay vs Kathi Kalu Oghad And Others on 4 August, 1961

10. A party to the suit is one on whose behalf or against whom a proceeding in a court has been filed. A witness is a person, either 14-SLP (C) No.14445 of 2021 on behalf of the Plaintiff or the defendant, who appears before a Court to substantiate a statement or claim made by either side. Neither the phrase ‘party to the suit’ nor ‘witness’ is defined under the CPC or any other statute on the books. However on this issue, a Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad7 held as under-
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 403 - B P Sinha - Full Document

S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath on 27 October, 1993

18. While considering the legislative intent of Order VII Rule 14(4), Order VIII Rule 1-A(4)(a) and Order XIII Rule 1(3), the High Court observed that the production of documents relied on and/or "in the possession and power of the parties" as being obligatory and noted that a failure to do so, may in some cases be tantamount to fraud. Reference was made to S.P. Chengivaraya Naidu v. Jagannath9 to substantiate the same. It was observed that permitting a party to hold a document intentionally, for any purpose whatsoever would nullify the requirement of a level playing field in the litigation, but also undercut the said provisions because the language is clear- mandating for the parties to 9 (1994) 1 SCC 1 (2-Judge Bench) 23-SLP (C) No.14445 of 2021 produce documents, and whereas, the exception- i.e., Order VIII Rule 1-A (4) and Order XIII Rule 1(3) applies only to witnesses and not to parties. Thus concluding that the legislative intent is clear and unambiguous, as evidenced by the same difference being present three times.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 979 - K Singh - Full Document

Sau. Rekha Purushottam Karale vs Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Thr. Its ... on 4 April, 2019

In Purushottam (supra) the Learned Single Judge had observed that it was not open for the trial court to allow the 12 See Sadayappan v. State, (2019) 9 SCC 257 (2-Judge Bench) 13 Para 23 of the Impugned Judgment 28-SLP (C) No.14445 of 2021 production of documents to confront the party to the suit and it would be a different course if the person being confronted was only a witness to the suit.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 12 - A S Chandurkar - Full Document

Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) By Lrs vs Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors on 8 April, 1987

28. It is settled law that what is not pleaded cannot be argued, as for the purposes of adjudication, it is necessary for the other party to know the contours of the case it is required to meet. It is equally well settled that the requirement of having to plead a particular argument does not include exhaustively doing so. We may refer to Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College 14, wherein it was observed as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 449 - K N Singh - Full Document

Sadayappan @ Ganesan vs State Represented By Inspector Of ... on 26 April, 2019

In Purushottam (supra) the Learned Single Judge had observed that it was not open for the trial court to allow the 12 See Sadayappan v. State, (2019) 9 SCC 257 (2-Judge Bench) 13 Para 23 of the Impugned Judgment 28-SLP (C) No.14445 of 2021 production of documents to confront the party to the suit and it would be a different course if the person being confronted was only a witness to the suit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 14 - N V Ramana - Full Document
1