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

2008 Supreme(Del) 539

VEENA BIRBAL
VINOD AGARWAL & CO. P. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
UMA AGARWAL – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Cyan Mitra, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Nenzo.

JUDGMENT

Veena Birbal, J. (Oral)-Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

CM(M) No. 586/2008

1. By way of present petition, petitioner has challenged impugned order dated 14.3.2008 wherein prayer of the petitioner for expunging the cross-examination of PW-1 from the record has been rejected.

2. Learned Counsel for petitioner has submitted that in the present case respondent/ defendant did not file written statement despite repeated opportunities given and as such the right of the respondent to file written statement was closed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 26.9.2005. The same was challenged by the respondent/ defendant before this Court vide CM. (M) No. 2441/2005. The order of learned trial Court was upheld by this Court. Respondent/ defendant challenged the same before Honble Supreme Court by filing a SLP. Even the same was rejected. Thereafter, petitioner filed examination-in-chief by way of affidavit before learned trial Court and was partly cross-examined by defendant/respondent on 22.11.2007. On said date petitioner/plaintiff moved an application for expunging the cross-examination of plaintiff on record stating therein that as the right of defendant to file written stat










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