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

1933 Supreme(All) 154

NIAMATULLAH, RACHHPAL SINGH
Gambhirmull Panday – Appellant
Versus
Major A. U. John – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
K.N. Katju and Bankey Behari Lal, For the Appellant / B.E. O'conor and B. Malik, For the Respondent

JUDGMENT

Niamatullah and Rachhpal Singh, JJ. - These are two applications by the Plaintiffs in suit No. 14 of 1933 pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Agra. One is an application for revision of an interlocutory order, dated 4th January, 1933, refusing to issue a commission for the examination of certain witnesses residing in England. The other prays for transfer of the case to some other court. The latter is based principally on the allegation that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, dated 4th January, 1933, excluding important evidence, is one which, if persisted in, is not likely to result in a fair trial of the suit before him.

2. It appears that the suit was instituted on the 20th February, 1932. For reasons which it is not necessary to mention issues were not framed till the 15th December, 1932, on which date the learned judge recorded an order that the parties should apply for issue of commissions for examination of witnesses by 4th January, 1933. The Plaintiff-applicant applied on that date for commissions being issued for examination of seven witnesses, three of whom were to be examined in India. As to these the learned Subordinate Judge granted the applic

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