Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Sudesh Arora - Appellant
Versus
Jagdish Raj Sagar - Respondent
C.R.P. 207 of 2019
Decided On : 16-09-2019
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 41386/2019 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
C.R.P. 207/2019 & CM APPL.41385/2019 & 41387/2019
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 29.01.2019 whereby an application filed by the respondent under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC seeking to place on record certain additional documents has been allowed with cost of Rs.5000/-.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the application respondent has substantially delayed the progress of the suit which was at the stage of final hearing and about one year passed in disposal of the application.
3. By the application under Order 8 Rule 1A, the respondent has sought to place on record certified copies of orders/judgments in different proceedings.
4. Certified copy of a judgment/order of a Court is admissible in evidence under Section 74 read with Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act without formal proof thereof.
5. Since the certified copy of a judgment/order of a Court is admissible in evidence, respondent could have even produced the same at the time of addressing arguments. No formal application under Order 8 Rule 1A was required to be filed by the respondent.
6. In so far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to delay is concerned, it is seen that the application has been allowed with costs to compensate the petitioner for the delay.
7. Imposition of costs and the quantum of costs is a discretionary order and does not warrant any interference by the Court.
8. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition.
9. Petition is accordingly dismissed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
