Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
A.C.M. Enterprises Through Harshdeep Singh Juneja, S/o Late Mangat Singh Juneja – Appellant
Versus
Prakash Chand Baid S/o Lt. Bikhamchand Baid – Respondent
Order :
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.)
1. These two petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging therein the order dated 06.01.2025, whereby the applications moved by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14(3) and Order 18 Rule 17 have been rejected vide order dated06.01.2025.
2. The facts of the present case are as under:-
The petitioner/plaintiff, a registered partnership firm, instituted a civil suit on 29.09.2014 through its authorized partner Harshdeep Juneja against the respondents/defendants for specific performance of contract. The defendants filed their written statement. The learned trial Court framed issues. The plaintiff closed its evidence on 03.02.2016. Defendant No. 1- Prakash Chand Baid was examined and cross-examined on 09.12.2024.
The counsel for the plaintiff put a question with regard to the agreement dated 10.10.2013, whereby he had entered into another agreement for the same suit land with one Amit Choudhary. An objection was taken by the counsel for defendant No.1 on such question and that was sustained. The plaintiff moved an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the concerned police station and procured the ce
The court upheld the trial court's rejection of applications for document production and witness recall due to lack of demonstrated relevance and procedural compliance.
The right to lead evidence is pivotal to a fair trial and partakes of the character of natural justice and fair play. The recall of a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 should be for clarifying any do....
The recall of a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 should be for clarifying doubts and not to fill up any lacuna or omission in the evidence already recorded.
Defendants' failure to show due diligence and timely filing of documents justifies dismissal of their applications under the Code of Civil Procedure and no grounds were shown for High Court intervent....
While exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court is not sitting as an appellate court over the orders passed by the subordinate courts.
The court established that a defendant must produce relevant documents at the time of the written statement and provide valid reasons for any subsequent applications to introduce documents; failure t....
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
