Back
KESANG DOMA BHUTIA
Nayantara Hazra – Appellant
Versus
Sukumar Das – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee, learned lawyer appears for the petitioner and Mr. Mahendra Prasad Gupta, learned lawyer appears for the opposite party.
2. This revisional application is taken up for hearing.
3. Heard learned lawyers for both sides.
4. The defendant/petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 6th March, 2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 7th Court at Howrah in Title Suit No.1093 of 2017 whereby the learned Court below was pleased to reject the defendant’s prayer for examination of one Bharati Das, the summoned witness and fixing the case for argument, has preferred this revisional application.
5. It has been contended by learned lawyer for the petitioner that Bharati Das not being a listed witness and being a summoned witness, there is no need to file her evidence in chief on affidavit as required under Order 18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C., but somehow the defendant has filed her evidence in-chief on affidavit on 2.12.2019 and who was also present before the Court to give evidence but learned Court below fixed next date for recording her evidence and for argument. Unfortunately, Barati Das, the summoned witness was not present on 13.12.2019 and as such c
The main legal point established is that the procedural rules governing witness examination, specifically Order XVIII Rule 4 C.P.C. and Sections 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, do not p....
A party cannot be compelled to testify against their own interests, and the court must exercise discretion in allowing the summoning of witnesses, particularly when there is a conflict of interest.
The trial court erred in closing the evidence of DW 10 without first determining whether his presence was necessary and without issuing a formal summons under Rule 5 of Order XVI of the CPC.
A witness can be permitted to state on oath about an error crept in the affidavit already filed and allow him to make his own statement about the said fact, and proceed thereafter for cross-examinati....
The court affirmed that defendants with a common defense can provide evidence sequentially without violating procedural rules, emphasizing the quality of evidence over quantity.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
