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

1970 Supreme(Del) 194

RAJINDAR SACHAR, H.R.KHANNA
SARASWATI – Appellant
Versus
TULSI RAM SETH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ARUN SHARMA, B.R.SABHARWAL, C.V.FRANCIS, R.L.AGARWAL, S.C.SINGHA

Rajindar Sachar

( 1 ) THE question that requires determination in this petition is whether a senior advocate, designated under the Advocates Act, 1961 and Supreme Court- Rules, is debarred from examining or cross-examining the witnesses as this would amount to acting in a court on his part which admittedly a senior advocate is prohibited from doing.

( 2 ) A suit has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent for the recovery of Rs. 14,722. 61 and a mandatory Injunction for possession under Section 66 of the Specific Relief Act. During the trial of the suit: Mr. Hans Raj Sawhney, a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court and the High Court appearing for the defendant, wanted to examine certain witnesses. This was objected to by Bawa Shiveharan Singh, Advocate, for the plaintiff on the ground that Mr. Sawhney being a senior advocate could not act. Accordingly, it was contented that as examination and cross-examination of witnesses come under the definition of the term act , Mr. Sawhney could not proceed with the examination or cross- examination of the witness. This contention found favour with Shri P. L. Singla, Subordinate Judge, who by his order dated November 28, 1967, held that exami


































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