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

2001 Supreme(Kar) 514

S.N.KUMAR
BASALINGAPPA CHANNAPPA – Appellant
Versus
SHANTAWA – Respondent


Advocates:
G.BALAKRISHNA SHASTRI

S. N. KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONERS are the defendants in the Court below. Plaintiff has filed a suit for the relief of partition and separate possession of her l/12th share in the suit schedule property. Petitioners are defendants 1 to 7 in the suit. Defendants 1 to 7 have not filed their written statement. Therefore, the case was posted for evidence and the plaintiff was examined as p. W. 1. She has marked Exhibits P. 1 to P. 19, P. 20, P. 22 and P. 23 to 30, documents in support of her claim. After her examination-in-chief was over the aforesaid documents were marked, learned Counsel appearing for defendants 1 to 7 requested the Court to permit him to cross-examine P. W. 1. The said request was rejected by the Court below on the ground that defendants 1 to 7 have not filed written/statement. In view of the language-employed in Order 8, Rule 10 of the CPC especially the words in italics that, when the defendant fails to present the written statement called for by the Court, the Court shall pronounce the judgment against him or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on pronouncement of such judgment, a decree shall be drawn up, the Court was of the opinion that









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