Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
SANDEEP SHAH
Legal Representatives of Shri Om Prakash S/o Shri Rang Lal – Appellant
Versus
Balwant S/o Shri Sheochand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP SHAH, J.
1. By way of filing the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(f) CPC, 1908, the appellants–plaintiffs have challenged the order dated 03.09.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhadra in Civil Suit No. 08/2003 (Om Prakash & Ors. v. Balwant & Ors.), whereby the application filed by the respondents/defendants under Order XI Rule 21(1) CPC was allowed and the suit was dismissed on the ground of alleged non-compliance, of the order dated 23.03.2006 passed by learned Trial Court, by the appellants.
Factual Matrix:-
2. Succinctly stated, the facts are that the appellants–plaintiffs filed a suit alleging therein that the lands, particulars whereof are in paragraphs no.1 and 2 of the plaint, were owned by respondent Nos.1 and 2, who had agreed to sell the same to the appellants for a total consideration of Rs.6,30,000/-. Pursuant to the verbal agreement, a written agreement dated 09.04.2001 was executed, and the appellants–plaintiffs paid a sum of Rs.5,57,000/- by different cheques, with a specific understanding that the balance amount of Rs.73,000/- would be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. The period for executi
The stringent provisions of Order XI Rule 21 of the CPC should be applied only in extreme cases, where there is contumacy or a willful attempt to disregard the court's order.
The appellate court may only admit additional evidence under specific conditions, which were not met by the petitioners, as they failed to demonstrate due diligence in producing the evidence during t....
Procedural rules should not obstruct substantial justice; reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents must be interpreted liberally to ensure fair adjudication.
(1) After Order XI Rule 1 has been amended with respect to suits before commercial courts and a specific provision/procedure has been prescribed with respect to suits before commercial division and b....
The court allowed the production of documents not annexed to the plaint due to lack of coordination, establishing that reasonable cause for non-disclosure can be recognized under procedural rules.
The court held that lack of coordination between the plaintiff's director and legal counsel constituted reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents, allowing their introduction in evidence.
Defendants' failure to show due diligence and timely filing of documents justifies dismissal of their applications under the Code of Civil Procedure and no grounds were shown for High Court intervent....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time limit for inspection of documents as prescribed by the amended Rule 15 of Order XI C.P.C. is 'at or before the settlement of issues,'....
Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) of the CPC permits document production to counter claims made by defendants, allowing flexibility in commercial suits.
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
