Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 38 (0.25 seconds)Section 36 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 145 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 33 in Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Sait Tarajee Khimchand And Ors. vs Yelamarti Satyam Alias Satteyya And ... on 19 April, 1971
However, it is to be noted that the ingredients of Order 13
Rule 4 has nothing to do with the question whether a
particular document has been admitted in evidence to admit a
document in evidence, the endorsement as per Order 13 Rule
4 is quite sufficient and no express order as per Section 61(1)
of the Indian Stamp Act is not necessary as per decision
Jageshar V. Collr, AIR 1966 A 392 FB. In law, the marking of
a document as an exhibit on the side of one party does not
dispense with its proof as per decision Sait Tarajee V.
Yelamarti, AIR 1971 SC 1865.
Section 34 in Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Bada Bodaiah And Anr. vs Bada Lingaswamy And Ors. on 13 November, 2002
In Bada Bodaiah v. Bada Lingaswamy , after considering
Order VII Rule 14(3) and Order XIII Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, it was
held that mere non-mention of documents in plaint or subsequent
incidental or supplemental proceedings in the suit does not in any
manner affect power of the Court to grant leave to produce
documents at subsequent stage. Non-mentioning of the documents
sought to be produced at the subsequent stage is a curable defect.
But, the power to grant leave must be exercised in rare cases and
not in a routine manner.
Manickam vs Chinnasamy on 28 July, 2011
In Manickam v. Chinnasamy the High Court of Madras
elaborately considered the law on this point and held as follows:
Javer Chand And Others vs Pukhraj Surana on 25 April, 1961
At this stage, this Court worth recalls the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Javer Chand and others V.
Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655, wherein it is held as
follows: