SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Raj) 2279

VINEET KOTHARI
Thakur Anand Singh – Appellant
Versus
Shri Kamal Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr.R.R.Nagori, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr.Jagat Tatia on behalf of Mr.Manish Shishodia, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

1. - Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.2.2005 whereby the learned trial Court rejected the application of the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 Civil Procedure Code. for production of original documents at the stage of plaintiff's evidence.

3. The learned trial Court has held that since only photo-copies of these documents were produced along with the plaint and list of documents filed with the plaint and no reason has been assigned for delay in submitting the original documents. Therefore, the application under Order 7 Rule 14 Civil Procedure Code. did not deserve to be allowed.

4. Having heard the learned, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff was prevented by sufficient cause in not producing the documents within time as he was suffering from heart ailment and ultimately the said plaintiff Thakur Anand Singh expired and presently his LRs are pursuing the present litigation.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 14.2.2005 is set aside and this writ petition is allowed. The learned trial Court shall allow the plaintiff to produce these documents in original on the




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top