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

1995 Supreme(MP) 1028

TEJ SHANKAR
Narain – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
P.C. Chandil for applicants; P.D. Agarwal for State.

ORDER

1. Heard. This petition in revision has been filed against the order dated 2.9.95.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the original document was filed by respondent in the Court, but it was immediately, taken back after filing a photo-copy, which is in defiance of the specific provisions contained in Order 13 Rule 9 CPC and Rule 335 of the M.P. Civil Court Rules. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent as well as perused the impugned order. It has come to my notice in a large number of cases that original documents are being returned in defiance of the specific provisions of law. Order 13 Rule 9 CPC makes a specific provision for the return of admitted documents. It is, therefore impressed upon all the Courts in the State to comply with these provisions of law with respect to return of documents. Not only this, there is also specific provision in the M.P. Civil Court Rules contained in Rule 335, which too is not being followed. Again, I may also reiterate the other fact which has come to the notice of this Court that much emphasis is laid on the photo-copies of documents and they are being accepted, though to the best of my knowledge, there is no p



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