Back
Sumith – Appellant
Versus
Sebastian – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Kauser Edappagath, J.
Ext.P3 order passed by the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court-II, Kanjirappally is under challenge in this Original Petition.
2. The petitioner herein filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate as CMP No.6685 of 2018 against the 1st respondent. The allegations in the complaint are that Ext.P1 sale agreement has been executed between the petitioner and respondent No.1 whereby the latter agreed to sell, and the former agreed to purchase 04.05 cents of the property comprised in Re-Survey No. 42/2 of Erumeli (N) Village belonging to the latter for a total consideration agreed at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per cent, that the petitioner paid a total advance amount of Rs.2,50,000/-to the 1st respondent, but he failed to execute the sale deed as agreed and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.
3. On receipt of the complaint, the learned Magistrate proceeded to conduct an enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. As part of the enquiry, the petitioner was examined as CW1 and an independent witness was examined as CW2. The petitioner filed a witness list to summon the witness to the agreement, as a witness, as part o
The privilege under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act does not prevent an advocate from disclosing facts known outside of professional communication, allowing for the summoning of witnesses to p....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the immunity envisaged under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act is not an absolute bar on the lawyer of the adversarial party for being su....
Section 122 of Act is compulsion on one among spouse to divulge communication transpired to him by other spouse during subsistence of their marriage.
The Court clarified that parties and witnesses are subject to similar disclosure requirements regarding document production in civil procedures.
Summoning a defendant as the plaintiff's witness is discouraged and should occur only in exceptional circumstances; the plaintiff must bear the burden of proof.
A party to a suit cannot compel the opponent to testify on their behalf as a matter of right; the trial court has discretion to allow such summons based on the necessity and context of the case.
Parties in a civil suit can be summoned as witnesses under the CPC, but compelling testimony without sufficient cause violates procedural norms.
A party to a suit can call another party as a witness under specific circumstances, but must provide a valid justification for doing so according to procedural rules.
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
