Back
NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Bhavesh Nareshchandra Amin – Appellant
Versus
Dilipbhai Bhaktiprasad Doshi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Tatvam K. Patel on behalf of the petitioner, learned Advocate Mr. A.S. Vakil on behalf of the respondent no.1 and learned Advocate Mr. A.B. Chaturvedi on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3.
2. Issue Rule. Learned Advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.
3. By way of this petition the petitioner challenges an order dated 20.10.2022 passed by the learned 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below Exh. 86 in Regular Civil Suit No. 614 of 2013, whereby the learned Civil Court had rejected the application below Exh. 86 preferred by the present petitioner- original defendant no.1 for issuance of witness summons.
4. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are as under:
4.1 The respondent no.1 herein is the original plaintiff of Regular Civil Suit No. 614 of 2013 in which Exh. 86 below which the impugned order had been passed. The petitioner herein is the original- defendant no.1 and respondents no. 2 to 4 are original defendants no. 2 to 4. Said regular civil suit had been preferred inter alia praying for setting aside of a deed titled as ‘consent letter with regard to sale-deed’ dated 15.03.2010 on a Rs. 100/-
The right to make an application for witness summons is available to a party at any stage of the suit, but the trial court may refuse to issue summons only if the application is not bona fide, vexati....
The discretionary power of the court to summon witnesses under Order 16 Rule 14 CPC and the limitations on the parties' right to invoke the power of the court under this rule.
The court's decision emphasized the discretion of the trial court in permitting parties to call witnesses and the provisions of Order 16 Rule 1 and 1A of the CPC, which allow parties to summon witnes....
Point of Law : Negligence and failure to produce such evidence because of inadvertence/negligence, is not a lawful ground to permit a party to lead the additional evidence within the ambit and scope ....
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the restricted nature of the High Court's interference in the decisions of inf....
The court upheld the trial court's rejection of applications for document production and witness recall due to lack of demonstrated relevance and procedural compliance.
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
