Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Bihar Prohibition And Excise Act, 2016
M.Suresh Babu vs T.M.Sreedharan on 12 February, 2007
In M.Ramesh Babu v. M.Sreedhar1, a division bench of this
High Court has dealt with the issue as to when the opinion of second
expert can be sought for without setting aside the earlier report. In its
exhaustive order, after referring various judgments, the division bench
held thus:
Section 46 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Janachaitanya Housing Ltd. Rep. By Its ... vs Divya Financiers, A Proprietorship ... on 31 March, 2008
13. So far as delay is concerned, a division of this Court in
Janachaitanya Housing Limited v. Divya Financiers4 has observed
thus:
Kunamneni Nageswara Rao vs Kunamneni Dasaradharamaiah, And ... on 27 June, 2018
In Kunamneni Nageswara Rao v. Kunamneni
Dasaradharamaiah and Ors.3 , a learned Judge of this Court has
come across a situation where the plaintiff himself in that case made a
request to send vakalat and written statement containing the signatures
of the first defendant along with contract of sale to the expert for
comparison. In that context, learned Judge expressed his views which
are germane for consideration in the present context. He observed:
Korvi Rosaiah vs Mitta Srinivasa Reddy on 23 February, 2006
51. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no bar to take the
opinion of a second expert without setting aside the earlier report.
However, it is not desirable to appoint second commissioner or to
8
refer to the second expert without there being any valid reasons.
There should be special circumstances and the Court must record
its reasons for sending the document to the second expert or for
appointing a second commissioner. If the circumstances warrant,
the Court may appoint second commissioner or to seek the opinion
of a second expert in the light of the language of Order XXVI Rule
10-A of CPC read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The
salient features, essentials and distinction between Order XXVI
Rule 9 and Order XXVI Rule 10-A of CPC read with Section 45 of
the Indian Evidence Act always to be kept in mind. We are in
complete agreement with the opinion of the learned Judge in Korvi
Rosaiah's v. Mitta Srinivasa Reddy2. Moreover, we are of the view
that the doors of the trial Court shall not be shut at the initial
stage. The parties must be given full opportunity to adduce
evidence and the other side must be given the same opportunity to
adduce rebuttal evidence.
1