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

2023 Supreme(Bom) 120

SANDEEP V. MARNE
Dinesh Singh Bhim Singh – Appellant
Versus
Vinod Shobhraj Gajaria – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. C.K. Tripathi
For the Respondent: Ms. Neeta P. Karnik

JUDGMENT:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, Petition is heard finally.

2. The Petitioner/Defendant assails order dated 26 August 2022 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Vasai, on Application below Exhibit 52 allowing the prayer of Plaintiffs/Respondents to issue witness summons.

3. The objection of the Petitioner/Defendant to the order dated 26 August 2022 is that the Respondents/Plaintiffs in the first instance had failed to file list of witnesses as mandated under Order XVI Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’). Having failed to file list of witnesses under that provision, it was incumbent on the Respondents/ Plaintiffs to show sufficient cause for seeking issuance of witnesses summons to additional witnesses under the provisions of Sub-rule 3 of Rule 1 of Order XVI of CPC. It is contended that since no sufficient cause was pleaded nor shown, the trial court has erred in allowing the Application and issued summons to witnesses whose names were not included in the list of witnesses to be filed under the provisions of sub-rule 1 of Rule 1 of Order XVI of CPC

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant in suppo

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