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

2017 Supreme(All) 2700

SUNEET KUMAR
MEGH SINGH – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT JUDGE, HAPUR – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Ashish Kumar Singh, Advocate.

JUDGMENT :

Suneet Kumar, J.

Petitioner/defendant is assailing the order dated 20 February 2017 passed by District Judge, Hapur, in Civil Revision No. 50/2016, arising from an order dated 29 August 2016 passed by the trail Court, whereby, application for examining the husband of the respondent/plaintiff has been allowed.

2. The facts, briefly stated, is that the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property alleged to have been purchased by a registered sale-deed. Upon framing issues, rival parties led their evidence. The daughter of the respondent appeared as a witness on behalf of the respondents. Thereafter, an application (81Ga), bringing certified copy of the sale-deed, power of attorney and other documents was moved. Another application (83Ga) was moved by the respondent for examining her husband, in view of section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act). The applications were contested by the petitioner, however, the trial court allowed the application; in revision, the order of the trial court was affirmed. The orders and under challenge.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would confine his argument to application















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