M. R. SHAH, A. S. BOPANNA
Ishwarlal Mali Rathod – Appellant
Versus
Gopal – Respondent
ORDER :
(M. R. Shah, J.)
1. Present is the classic example of misuse of the adjournments granted by the court. Present SLPs have been preferred challenging the impugned order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in M.P. No.107 of 2021 and M.P. No. 108 of 2021 by which the High Court has dismissed the said misc. petition preferred by the petitioner – original defendant, confirming the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 21.12.2020 closing the right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness.
2. Respondents No.1 to 4 herein filed suit for eviction, arrears of rents and mesne profit against one Ramchandra (now dead) and the present petitioner on 14.08.2013. Petitioner herein – defendant filed the written statement and issues were framed. On 12.05.2014 plaintiffs filed an affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC which was objected by the petitioner and again the plaintiffs filed an affidavit on 07.03.2015. From 12.05.2015 till 02.12.2019 at least ten times the defendants sought adjournments which were granted by the court. Lastly the adjournment was given with cost as a last opportunity. Despite the same the petitioner – defendant did
Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd.
Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand and Anr.
Ramon Services (P) Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor
Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation (P) Ltd.
Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra
Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary v. State (Delhi Admn.)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.