Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Raj Rani – Appellant
Versus
Sumitra Parashar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. closure of plaintiff's right to lead evidence. (Para 1 , 1 , 3 , 4 , 10) |
| 2. limitations on article 227 jurisdiction. (Para 2 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. procedure for summoning witnesses outlined. (Para 5 , 6 , 9) |
| 4. potential impact of unexamined witnesses. (Para 13 , 14 , 16) |
| 5. permission to apply for leading remaining evidence. (Para 17 , 19) |
| 6. writ petition disposed with limited liberty. (Para 21) |
1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails order dated 10th December 2021, passed by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") in CS DJ ADJ 15466/2016 (Raj Rani & Anr. v. Sumitra Parashar & Anr.), which reads as under:
"CS DJ ADJ 15466/16
RAJ RANI vs. SUMITRA PRASAR
10.12.2021
Present: Sh. Rahul Hans, Ld. Proxy Counsel for plaintiff.
Ms. Amrit Kaur, Ld. Counsel for defendant along with defendant.
Fresh Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of plaintiff. Ld. Proxy Counsel for plaintiff requested for one more opportunity to examine the witness stating that plaintiff has engaged new Counsel recently. Request of the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff is opposed by Ld. Counsel for defendant stating that plaintiff is deliberately lin
Court affirmed limited intervention under Article 227 when no jurisdictional errors occur, reinforcing the necessity for litigants to actively pursue their cases.
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....
The court permitted the petitioner to lead evidence despite procedural delays, underscoring that adjournments should not obstruct the pursuit of justice.
The court has the discretion to allow the petitioner to lead further evidence despite delays in the proceedings.
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....
Repeated failures to comply with procedural orders may justify the closure of the right to lead evidence, but courts can grant final opportunities to ensure fairness.
Failure to produce witnesses despite multiple opportunities may lead to the closure of the right to lead evidence.
The court stressed the necessity of allowing opportunities for witnesses to testify, particularly after circumstances change post-prior orders.
The main legal point established is that the court has the discretion to set aside an order closing the right to lead evidence and grant further opportunity, considering the circumstances and subject....
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
