Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.29 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Union Of India (Uoi) Represented By Its ... vs Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society ... on 6 September, 2002
16. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union
of India vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited 2
held at paragraph Nos.15, 16, 17 and 19 as under, viz.,
"15. It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title, burden
always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for
granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set
2
(2014) 2 S.C.C. 269
::11:: crp_1213&1226_2025
up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the
plaintiff.
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs Thukalan Paulo Avira & Ors on 12 September, 1958
17. At the outset, let us examine the legal position with regard to
whom the burden of proof lies in a suit for declaration of title and
possession. This Court in Maran Mar Basselios Catholicos v.
Thukalan Paulo Avira 3 observed that :
Symantec Software Solutions Pvt Ltd & ... vs Ms. R. Modi & Ors on 17 October, 2016
"29. Apart from the aforesaid judgments as relied upon by the
parties, I find that a Coordinate Bench of this court in its recent
opinion reported as MANU/DE/2790/2016 Symantec Software
Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. R. Modi and Ors. had by referring to
the Judgment in Amitabha Sen (supra) held that party to a litigation
is not entitled to summon or examine a witness without satisfying
the court of the relevance of the witness's testimony to the lis for
adjudication, in other words, the purpose for which the witness is
proposed to be summoned.
M/S Pradeep Manoj Farms Pvt Ltd Pvt. Ltd. vs Duggirala Vidya Sagar Ra on 24 February, 2023
17. As regards the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 (plaintiff), viz., in the cases of Mandir Shri Hanuman Murti vs. Collector Mahoday, Datia 4; Bharat Heavy 3 AIR1959 SC 31 4 2016 (1) M.P.L.J. 75 ::12:: crp_1213&1226_2025 Electricals Limited vs. M/s.Ineos Styrolution Ltd. 5; and Pradeep Majoj Farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Duggirala Vidya Sagar Ra 6, there is no dispute or quarrel so far as ratio / principles of law laid down in respect of an application filed under Order 16 Rule 1 calling for summoning of an witness is concerned. However, the said decisions / judgments would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case and are distinguishable on its own facts for the simple reason that, in the instant case it was not a case of an independent witness or for that matter summoning of the expert on whose opinion the necessity for filing of I.A.Nos.64 and 65 of 2025 in O.S.No.317 of 2020 arose. Whereas, in the instant case, the respondent No.1 (plaintiff) intends to call for the respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) himself as a witness which apparently sounds illogical particularly for the reason that the respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) had chosen not to contest the case and had also decided to not file a Written Statement to the above suit filed by the respondent No.1 (plaintiff). Under the circumstances, calling for the respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) as an witness appears to be on the ground that there being some connivance between the respondent No.1 (plaintiff) and respondent No.2 (defendant No.1).
Atul Kumar Singh vs Nitish Kumar on 6 July, 2018
In the case of Atul Kumar Singh vs. Nitish Kumar 1, a
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi held at
Paragraph Nos.29, 30, 31 and 33 as under :
1