Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)Section 111 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Bhagirath Shankar Somani And Smt. ... vs Rameshchandra Daulal Soni And Onkar ... on 4 June, 2007
19 None of the citations placed on record by the Petitioners
would indicate that a the pardanashin lady, while invoking Section 111 of
the Indian Evidence Act, could seek an order under Order 18 Rule 1 for
refraining from stepping into the witness box and per contra, seeking a
direction to the Defendants to commence their evidence.
20 In Bhagirath Shankar Somani vs. Rameshchandra Daulal Soni,
2007 (5) Mh.L.J. 508 : 2007(4) ALL MR 514, this Court concluded that if
the Defendant decides to lead evidence first and is so permitted by the
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2017 01:00:56 :::
*9* 906wp781o03
Court, the Plaintiff can always lead evidence in rebuttal. The Trial Court
does not have the power to issue a direction to the Defendant compelling
him to lead his evidence before the Plaintiff adduces his evidence under
Order 18 Rule 1. Only when the Defendant claims a right to begin under
Rule 1 and the Plaintiff disputes existence of such right, the Court will
have to decide the question whether, the Defendant has acquired a right to
begin.
Dattatray Namdeo Patil vs Ram Namdeo Patil & Others on 20 April, 2010
21 This Court, in Dattatray Namdeo Patil vs. Ram Namdeo Patil
and others, 2010(3) Mh.L.J. 801, dealt with a similar issue and concluded
in paragraphs 3 and 4 that Rules 1 and 2 of Order 18 of the Code of Civil
Procedure would entitle the Defendant, who admits the fact, to begin the
recording of his evidence first. It is an enabling provision. If the Defendant
applies and makes a request or claims such a right, the Court may pass an
order permitting the Defendant to step into the witness box first.
M/S.Metafield Coil Pvt.Ltd vs M/S.Nikivik Tube Industries Pvt.Ltd on 22 September, 2011
22 In Metafield Coil Private Limited vs. Nikivik Tube Industries
Private Limited, 2012 (1) Mh.L.J. 289, while considering such an issue
under Order 18 Rule 1, this Court concluded that a consistent view taken
by the courts is that a direction against the Defendant to lead evidence
before the Plaintiff leads his evidence, cannot be issued under Order 18
Rule 1. The scheme of law appears to be that of a normal rule and it
would be a privilege of the Plaintiff to lead his evidence first. However, it
enables the Defendant to exercise the right in the contingency mentioned
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2017 01:00:56 :::
*10* 906wp781o03
in the rule. After the Plaintiff exercises his option to lead evidence first, it
is for the Defendant to decide whether, he would like to lead evidence and
make such a formal request to the Court. If the Court permits the
Defendant to lead evidence first, the Plaintiff can always lead evidence in
rebuttal. The Court does not have the power to issue a direction to the
Defendant so as to compel him to step into the witness box first and lead
evidence.
Section 12 in The Registration Of Births And Deaths Act, 1969 [Entire Act]
Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul And ... vs Pratima Maity And Ors on 9 September, 2003
14 In this backdrop, the onus and burden of proving the
registered sale deed dated 29.12.1972 would lie on the Defendants
considering the scope and effect of Section 111 of the Indian Evidence
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2017 01:00:56 :::
*7* 906wp781o03
Act, 1872 and the view taken by the Honourable Supreme Court in the
matter of Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul and another vs. Pratima
Maity and others, (2004) 9 SCC 468 : AIR 2003 SC 4351 and the Gauhati
High Court in Mustt.Jubeda Khatun vs. Sulaiman Khan, AIR 1986 Gauhati
Section 17 in The Registration Of Births And Deaths Act, 1969 [Entire Act]
Mustt. Jubeda Khatun vs Sulaiman Khan on 13 August, 1985
14 In this backdrop, the onus and burden of proving the
registered sale deed dated 29.12.1972 would lie on the Defendants
considering the scope and effect of Section 111 of the Indian Evidence
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2017 01:00:56 :::
*7* 906wp781o03
Act, 1872 and the view taken by the Honourable Supreme Court in the
matter of Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul and another vs. Pratima
Maity and others, (2004) 9 SCC 468 : AIR 2003 SC 4351 and the Gauhati
High Court in Mustt.Jubeda Khatun vs. Sulaiman Khan, AIR 1986 Gauhati
1