SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(SC) 545

S.N.VARIAVA, M.B.SHAH
Kewal Krishan – Appellant
Versus
Harnek Singh – Respondent


JUDGMENT

S.N. Variava, J.-Leave granted.

2. Respondent absent inspite of service.

3. We have heard Mr. Gaur. Mr. Gaur submits that Appellant/Plaintiff was present in Court and ready to give evidence but was not permitted to do so. Mr. Gaur states that if given one more opportunity the Appellant will, on the date/s fixed for hearing by the trial Court, keep himself and all his witnesses available in Court and will lead their evidence without fail. Mr. Gaur states that the Appellant will not ask for adjournment on any ground whatsoever.

4. In our view, end of justice requires that the Appellant be given one more opportunity of leading evidence. Accordingly the order closing the evidence of the Appellant is set aside. The trial Court is directed to permit the Appellant to lead his evidence.

5. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Appellant to pay to the Respondent costs fixed at Rs. 500/-.

(N.K.R.) Appeal allowed.

***************

Parallel Citations of other Journals :

Kewal Krishan v. Harnek Singh (Dead) by LRs., 2001(2) Supreme 506 : AIR 2001 SC 1440 : AIR 2001 SC 1454

00027

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top