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

2023 Supreme(Pat) 144

SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Anamika Pranav – Appellant
Versus
Anil Kumar Choudhary – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner: M/s Arjun Kumar, Alok Kumar.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey.

Sunil Dutta Mishra, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present application has been filed against the order dated 16.09.2017 passed in Title Suit No. 1482 of 2013 passed by learned Sub-Judge-VII, Muzaffarpur whereby and whereunder the learned Trial Court allowed the petition of plaintiff to expunge the evidence of P.W.-3, Padma Raman Pathak, who died after his examination-in-chief and part cross-examination.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit bearing Suit No. 1482 of 2013 for declaration that the Sale Deed No. 8233 dated 19.03.2013 is void, fraudulent, illegal, inoperative and without consideration and has not confer any title or interest to the defendant/respondent over any part of the suit property described in Schedule-1 of the plaint.

During the trial the plaintiffs brought on Padma Raman Pathak (P.W.-3) whose examination-in-chief was filed on 23.05.2017 thereafter the defendant partly cross-examined the said witness and it was deferred for further cross-examination but unfortunately the said witness died which was informed to the Court. The defendant filed a petition dated 11.07.2017 with a prayer to expunge the evidence of P.W.

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