Back
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Paritosh Chandiok – Appellant
Versus
Rajiv Arora – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
1. Petitioner challenges the order dated 11.03.2020 passed in CS. No. 8195/2016 titled as "Paritosh Chandiok vs. Rajiv Arora", whereby the learned Trial Court had closed the right of the petitioner/plaintiff to lead evidence.
2. Mr. Rishi Manchanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that 11.03.2020 was the first date for the purposes of recording of evidence when the proxy counsel appearing for the main counsel had sought a short adjournment.
3. The learned Trial Court granted time only uptil 02:00 PM to file the evidence by way of an affidavit and the same not being filed, had closed the right to lead evidence.
4. Mr. Manchanda, learned counsel submits that after the impugned order was passed, the country was reeling under the COVID-19 epidemic and, therefore, at the first available opportunity on 10.02.2022, an application seeking recall/modification of the order dated 11.03.2020 was filed. By way of the impugned order, the said application was dismissed.
5. Mr. Manchanda, learned counsel submits that the learned Trial Court had passed the impugned order w
The suspension of the bar of limitation by the Supreme Court due to the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the court's decision to set aside the order closing the right to lead evidence.
Granting leniency to litigants during the pandemic period and allowing one opportunity to lead evidence.
The exceptional circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic and the medical condition of the parties should be considered in granting opportunities to lead evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the pivotal nature of the right to lead evidence in ensuring a fair trial and the importance of granting opportunities to parties to place their re....
The court emphasized the significance of the right to lead evidence in a fair trial, reinforcing that opportunities must be granted unless a party displays undue delay.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of granting reasonable opportunities to the defendant to lead evidence and the need for judicial orders to fix actual dates for r....
The disputes between the parties should be disposed of on merits rather than on petty technical issues.
Courts may close plaintiff's evidence after multiple (more than three) wasted opportunities in old suits; delays often due to parties' conduct, not judicial inaction; no interference warranted.
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
