Back
NIDHI GUPTA
Uma Shankar Bhartia – Appellant
Versus
Suvidha Estate Agency – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Prayer in the present Revision Petition, is for setting aside order dated 23.07.2021 (Annexure P1) whereby learned trial Court has allowed interim miscellaneous application dated 15.01.2020 (Annexure P12) filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff, seeking to examine the petitioner/defendant No.2, as its own witness during evidence of plaintiff.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.11.2018, the plaintiff instituted a Suit (Annexure P2) for recovery of Rs.90,62,400/- against the defendants No.1 and 2/proforma respondent No.2 and the petitioner herein, respectively. Upon notice, the petitioner and respondent No.2 appeared and filed joint written statement dated 17.05.2019 (Annexure P3), in the said Suit. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff that he is a property dealer who deals in real estate and sale & purchase of immovable properties. Respondent No.2 and the petitioner who were in possession of the suit property as described in the head note of the plaint, were desirous of selling the same and therefore, approached plaintiff for sale of said property.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that upon sale of the suit property he was entitled to claim commission @
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.
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.
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.
A party can summon an opposite party for cross-examination under CPC, and adverse inferences may be drawn if a party fails to testify, reinforcing the necessity of cross-examination.
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 ....
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
