Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Siraj Khan – Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Mange Khan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition under article 227 against learned rc order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. chronology of the trial proceedings and absence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. misrepresentation of evidence and proceedings. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. deliberate absence and abuse of court process. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. dismissal of petition and imposition of costs. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. disposal of miscellaneous application. (Para 17) |
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails an order dated 17th May, 2022, passed by the learned Rent Controller ("the learned RC"), whereby an application, moved by the petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in RC/ARC 5342/2016 (Mohd. Mange Khan v. Siraj Khan) was dismissed. The petitioner was the respondent before the learned RC.
2. Given the limited nature of the controversy, we need not burden ourselves with the dispute between the parties. For the purposes of the present order, suffice it to state that, on 21st August, 2019, the evidence of the fourth witness of the respondent (the petitioner before the learned RC), PW-4 Yaseen, was recorded. Despite grant of opportunity, he was not c
The court upheld that misrepresentation and deliberate absence in judicial proceedings constitute an abuse of process, justifying dismissal of claims.
The right to lead evidence is pivotal to a fair trial and partakes of the character of natural justice and fair play. The recall of a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 should be for clarifying any do....
The court emphasized that judicial proceedings must allow ample opportunity for evidence presentation, particularly during extraordinary circumstances such as a pandemic, to uphold the right to a fai....
The court stressed the necessity of allowing opportunities for witnesses to testify, particularly after circumstances change post-prior orders.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited and circumscribed nature of the superintending jurisdiction vested in Article 227 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the importa....
Court affirmed limited intervention under Article 227 when no jurisdictional errors occur, reinforcing the necessity for litigants to actively pursue their cases.
Engaging a new counsel cannot be a ground for reopening evidence and filling up lacunae in the case.
A party cannot reopen evidence on grounds of prior counsel's negligence; integrity of trial procedures must be upheld.
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
