Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)Keshab Acharya vs Somehath Behera And Anr. on 22 November, 1957
Against this order the first party went up in revision to the Sessions Court. The point urged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the revision, was that in case affidavits of
additional witnesses sought to be put in by them were not allowed to be taken on the record they would not, under the law, be able to examine those persons as their witnesses and in support of this contention they placed reliance on Keshab Acharya v. Somenath Behera, AIR 1958 Orissa 79.
Bahori S/O Kalloo vs Ghure S/O Balwant And Anr. on 24 April, 1959
6. There is no direct case taking a contrary view. Reliance, however, was placed on behalf of the respondents on Bahori v. Ghure, AIR I960 Raj 15. That was a case where the learned Magistrate examined a Patwari as a Court witness and an objection was taken to this procedure. While delivering the judgment upholding the action of the learned Magistrate certain observations were made by Sarjoo
Prosad C. J. which give support to the contention that Sub-section (9) authorised the learned Magistrate to summon a witness on the application of either patty. The head-note is as follows :
Bhagwat Singh And Ors. vs State Through Udai Bhan Singh And Anr. on 2 March, 1959
5. This matter came up directly for decision in Bhagwat Singh v. State, AIR 1959 All 763. In that case the learned Magistrate had examined certain witnesses whose affidavits had not been placed on record. It was urged before the High Court that such evidence could not be taken into consideration by the Magistrate in coming to the conclusion as to which party was in actual possession For the contrary view two arguments seem to have been advanced, first that the words "hear the parties" in Sub-section (4) includes the oral examination of the parties and their witnesses and secondly that sub-section (9) confers a right upon a party to examine a person as its witness.
1