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

2006 Supreme(P&H) 3974

VINOD K.SHARMA
Pawan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Raj Kumar – Respondent


Judgment

Vinod K. Sharma, J.

1. Present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 5.8.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur declining the application moved by the petitioner for leading additional evidence in support of Issue No.3 which reads as under: "whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under order 23 Rule 1 CPC. " by way of additional evidence, the petitioner wanted to produce certified copy of the statement made by the counsel for the respondents herein in the previous suit as well as the certified copy of the order passed by the court on the basis of the said statement.

2. The case of the petitioner was that the said evidence is per se admissible and is necessary for just and proper adjudication of the case to record a finding on issue No.3. The said application has been declined by the learned Trial Court on the ground that the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) stand deleted and secondly for the reason that the said evidence was within the knowledge of the petitioner when the evidence was led and same could not be allowed after passage of so much of time.

3. The findings re

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