December 2017

November 2017

Comparison of Signatures—Photocopy of the document can be subjected to expert opinion. Rebuttal Evidence—Plaintiff has a right to lead evidence in rebuttal in respect of an issue, the onus of which was on the defendants.

By | November 20th, 2017|Evidence - Civil|

Comments Off on Comparison of Signatures—Photocopy of the document can be subjected to expert opinion. Rebuttal Evidence—Plaintiff has a right to lead evidence in rebuttal in respect of an issue, the onus of which was on the defendants.

Additional Evidence—Cause of action accrued to plaintiff only after acceptance of application for secondary evidence by defendant—Plaintiff is entitled to lead additional evidence in this regard.

By | November 13th, 2017|Evidence - Civil|

Comments Off on Additional Evidence—Cause of action accrued to plaintiff only after acceptance of application for secondary evidence by defendant—Plaintiff is entitled to lead additional evidence in this regard.

Recalling of Witness—This provision can only be invoked by the Court for its convenience and not on the asking of any party.

By | November 12th, 2017|Evidence - Civil|

Comments Off on Recalling of Witness—This provision can only be invoked by the Court for its convenience and not on the asking of any party.

Compromise of Suit—Holding of an enquiry is must in case a compromise is asserted by one party and denied by other party.

By | November 8th, 2017|Evidence - Civil|

Comments Off on Compromise of Suit—Holding of an enquiry is must in case a compromise is asserted by one party and denied by other party.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908,0.17 R.2 & S.35-B–Adjournment–Costs–Non-payment of cost is not a ground to struck off the defence.

By | November 5th, 2017|Evidence - Civil|

Comments Off on Civil Procedure Code, 1908,0.17 R.2 & S.35-B–Adjournment–Costs–Non-payment of cost is not a ground to struck off the defence.

Closing of evidence by order—Absence of Witness—Witness was duly summoned but was not present on last two dates of hearing—Thereafter, it was duty of the court to enforce the attendance of any witness through coercive methods.

By | November 4th, 2017|Evidence - Civil|

Comments Off on Closing of evidence by order—Absence of Witness—Witness was duly summoned but was not present on last two dates of hearing—Thereafter, it was duty of the court to enforce the attendance of any witness through coercive methods.

Revision-Closing of evidence by order – A procedural rule has to be liberally construed and care must be taken so that the technicality may not hamper in the administration of justice-Trial Court directed to grant one effective opportunity to conclude her evidence

By | November 4th, 2017|Evidence - Civil|

Comments Off on Revision-Closing of evidence by order – A procedural rule has to be liberally construed and care must be taken so that the technicality may not hamper in the administration of justice-Trial Court directed to grant one effective opportunity to conclude her evidence

Held; Court would have cautioned the petitioner that in case evidence was not produced, the same would be closed-Procedural wrangles cannot be allowed to stay in the way of grant of substantial justice-Trial Court directed to grant one effective opportunity to petitioner to close his evidence.

By | November 1st, 2017|Evidence - Civil|

Comments Off on Held; Court would have cautioned the petitioner that in case evidence was not produced, the same would be closed-Procedural wrangles cannot be allowed to stay in the way of grant of substantial justice-Trial Court directed to grant one effective opportunity to petitioner to close his evidence.

October 2017

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.11 R.14–Summoning of Witness-Having availed the process of summoning and after dismissal of first application on the same relief, the second application on the same cause of action cannot be allowed-Petition dismissed.

By | October 29th, 2017|Evidence - Civil|

Comments Off on Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.11 R.14–Summoning of Witness-Having availed the process of summoning and after dismissal of first application on the same relief, the second application on the same cause of action cannot be allowed-Petition dismissed.

Evidence Act, 1872, S.34 & S.114–Bahi Entry-Adverse Inference-Recovery of Amount-Withholding of best evidence-Stand of the plaintiff was that money was obtained from the firm and he came to know that the entries in the regard were made in the account of the firm as well, therefore, the appellant/ defendants had every opportunity to produce his accounts to rebut the claim of the plaintiff

By | October 21st, 2017|Evidence - Civil|

Comments Off on Evidence Act, 1872, S.34 & S.114–Bahi Entry-Adverse Inference-Recovery of Amount-Withholding of best evidence-Stand of the plaintiff was that money was obtained from the firm and he came to know that the entries in the regard were made in the account of the firm as well, therefore, the appellant/ defendants had every opportunity to produce his accounts to rebut the claim of the plaintiff

Trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to lead evidence and ought not to have passed the order closing the evidence of the plaintiff-Ordered Accordingly.

By | October 20th, 2017|Evidence - Civil|

Comments Off on Trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to lead evidence and ought not to have passed the order closing the evidence of the plaintiff-Ordered Accordingly.

Additional Evidence—Since the applicant had failed to challenge the order closing the evidence, therefore, they could not be permitted to lead additional evidence.

By | October 13th, 2017|Additional Evidence, Evidence - Civil|

Comments Off on Additional Evidence—Since the applicant had failed to challenge the order closing the evidence, therefore, they could not be permitted to lead additional evidence.

July 2017

June 2017

Evidence Act, 1872, S.64 & S.65–Secondary Evidence-Liberty to lead-Secondary evidence can be given only after proving the existence and loss of original documents.

By | June 14th, 2017|Evidence - Civil|

Comments Off on Evidence Act, 1872, S.64 & S.65–Secondary Evidence-Liberty to lead-Secondary evidence can be given only after proving the existence and loss of original documents.

Exhibiting of documents—An application for de-exhibiting documents tendered along with affidavit in examination-in-chief is not maintainable.

By | June 11th, 2017|Evidence - Civil|

Comments Off on Exhibiting of documents—An application for de-exhibiting documents tendered along with affidavit in examination-in-chief is not maintainable.