Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
P.K. Jana – Appellant
Versus
Neera Malik – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. presence of respondents during hearings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details regarding the closure of evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's reasoning on behalf of plaintiffs. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. quashing of impugned order. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. final disposal of the petition. (Para 16) |
1. Despite the fact that all the respondents stand duly served, Respondent 6 has not chosen to appear.
2. Respondents 3 and 4 were present on the last date of hearing. They have also not chosen to appear, though we are at the fag end of the day and it is now 05:00 p.m.
3. As the issue is short, I have heard Mr. Praveen Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioners and proceed to dispose of the present matter.
4. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails order dated 23rd November 2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") in CS 209575/2016, (P.K. Jana & Ors. Anr. Through LRs v. Neera Malik & Ors.), whereby the learned ADJ has closed the evidence of the petitioner, as the Plaintiff 2(a) and the sole surviving plaintiff in the said suit.
5. Mr. Aggarwal points out that the plaintiff sought to lead the evidence of
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....
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 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....
The court upheld that misrepresentation and deliberate absence in judicial proceedings constitute an abuse of process, justifying dismissal of claims.
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....
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
