Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Rajesh Kumar vs Mangat Rai And Others on 15 November, 2011
Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon
Rajesh Kumar v. Mangat Rai and others; 2012 (2) PLR 334;
wherein, it was held that Order 18, Rule 17-A was omitted by Civil
Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 w.e.f 01.07.2002, as it was
felt that unnecessary applications were being filed primarily to delay
the conclusion of the trial. It was further held that this does not take
away inherent power of the Court to do substantial justice between
the parties and also allow any material evidence to be produced by
them unless it is actuated with mala fides or is due to gross
Sunder Sham
negligence on their part. Revision petition was allowed subject to
2013.10.25 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CR No. 6459 of 2013 - 3-
costs `5000/-.
Prem Lata vs Ram Sarup on 27 September, 2005
Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon
Prem Lata v. Ram Sarup; 2005 (4) RCR (Civil) 423; passed by this
Court, wherein, it was held that necessary documents per se
admissible in evidence must be allowed to be produced, may be
subject to costs. It was also held that law of procedure is handmaid
of justice. It must be used to advance the cause of justice and to
avoid causing injustice.
The Code Of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002
Jagdish Kumar vs Smt. Manjit Kaur on 26 April, 2010
Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon
Jagdish Kumar v. Manjit Kaur; 2010 (3) PLR 108; passed by this
Court, wherein, additional evidence was allowed by the trial Court
and the order of trial Court was upheld.
1