Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)
Satnam Transport Company And Anr. vs Prakash Mal Surana on 15 February, 1980 cites

Bhonreylal And Ors. vs Kunj Beharilal on 29 November, 1968

The matter can further be viewed in the light of the decision in the case of Bhonreylal v. Kunj Beharilal ''AIR 1969 Raj 299) (supra). According to that derision, court is possessed of the power of condonation of delay in the presentation of the list by showing sufficient cause. After condonation of delay in the presentation of the list, witnesses can be examined. The object of the rules seems to be speedy trial and prevention of cooking up of witnesses by giving their names in the list, but the emphasis seems to he on allowing evidence by showing sufficient cause for not filing the list or for omission of the names of witnesses in the list and not on depriving the court of its power to permit the party to examine witnesses when list is not filed.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Mst. Tulsi Bai vs Chunilal And Anr. on 8 April, 1964

In the light if the guiding principles for construction of procedural provisions and in the light of the ratio of the cases decided after Tulsi Bai's case (AIR 1964 Raj 243) (supra), I am inclined to [construe Order 16, Rule 1 (3) and Rule 1A, C. P. C., in the manner that even where no list of witnesses is filed, still the court has power to permit a party to examine any witness produced by it after recording reasons, if sufficient cause is shown for not filing the list. It is true that Order 16, Rule 1, C. P. C., does not conceive and contemplate a situation of non-filing of the list, but from that, it cannot be said that the legislature intended to deprive the Court of such an important power of examining evidence at the instance of a party without which no justice can be administered.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 9 - Cited by 8 - P N Shinghal - Full Document
1