Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.50 seconds)Section 92 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 91 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 120 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Land Reforms Rules, 1954
Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr vs Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors on 6 December, 2004
22. It was argued that the plaintiff has not appeared in the witness box
to prove her case and hence the case of the plaintiff has remained
unproved and the suit is liable to be dismissed. It was also argued that
the receipt Ex.PW-1/D1/1 shows that entire sale consideration had been
paid to the plaintiff in advance and nothing was due and outstanding. The
plaintiff cannot add or delete to the contents of the receipt Ex.PW-1/D1/1
in view of Section 91 & 92 of Indian Evidence Act. PW-1 has also not
filed original Power of Attorney and reliance has been placed on the
judgments:- (1) Vidhyadhar Vs. Manik Rao & Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 573;
(2) Ram Prasad Vs. Hari Narayan AIR 1998 Raj.185; (3)Janki
Vasudev Bhojwani Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. 2005(2) SCC 217 to argue
that when the plaintiff does not enter into the witness box state her own
case and if she does not depose or get cross examined, adverse inference
can be drawn against her. It was argued that non examination of the
plaintiff is fatal in the present case.
Kailashi Devi vs Matadeen Agrawal And Ors. on 23 April, 2001
In support of his arguments, Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the
following judgments:- (1)Kailash Devi Vs. Matadeen Aggarwal AIR
2001 Rajasthan 306; (2)Smt.Gangvva Vs. Arjunsa AIR 2001
Karnataka 231; (3)Munni Devi Vs. Sona Devi 2014 Law Suit (All)
3157; (4) Sagar Bhagwat Vs.Kiran 2016 Law Suit (Bom)1174 and (5)
A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2014 SC 630.