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

DELHI HIGH COURT
AMIT BANSAL
Hi-Tech Geosynthetics Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Shubh Constructions Co. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J.

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

CMs 26293/2021 & 26294/2021 (both for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The applications stand disposed of.

CM(M) 531/2021 & CM 26292/2021 (for restraining the Ld. ADJ from passing final order in the suit)

3. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 19th March, 2021 passed by the Trial Court in terms of which, two applications filed by the petitioner (i) under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (CPC) for bringing certain documents on record; and (ii) under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC for leading evidence to prove the same, have been rejected.

4. The Trial Court while dismissing the aforesaid applications filed by the petitioner has reasoned that (i) the documents sought to be placed on record by the petitioner were in possession of the petitioner at the time of recording of evidence, however, the petitioner chose to wait until the stage of final arguments to place the same on record to fill the lacuna in its case; and (ii) no cogent reason has been given by the petitioner for the delay in placing the said documents on record and for leadin

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