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

2004 Supreme(Bom) 1144

A.M.KHANWILKAR
Upper India Couper Paper Mills Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Mangaldas & Sons – Respondent


JUDGMENT - KHANWILKAR A.M., J.:—Heard Counsel appearing for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr. Uraizee waives notice for respondents.

3. As short question is involved, the matter is heard for final disposal forthwith, by consent.

4. The only question that needs to be examined in the present petition is: whether the trial Court was justified in declining the request of the petitioner/defendants to allow them to continue the cross-examination by confronting the respondent/plaintiffs witness with documents without furnishing advance copies thereof to the concerned witness. The trial Court has rejected that request on the reasoning that in view of the provisions contained in Order VIII, Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioner/defendants were obliged to disclose those documents in the written statement and also furnish advance copies thereof to the respondents/defendants. The grievance made before this Court is that the petitioner/defendants were not using the said documents in support of their defence, but only for the limited purpose of confronting the respondents witness during the cross-examination and if it is so, it was not nec















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