Back
ANAND PATHAK
Ramji Rai – Appellant
Versus
Champa Rai – Respondent
ORDER
With consent heard finally.
1. The present petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution at the instance of defendant taking exception to the order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the trial Court whereby application preferred by defendant under Order XIX rule 1 and 2 CPC is rejected.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been filed by the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) against the petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 23 with respect to the agriculture land at village Ranipura, Bahodapur, District Gwalior with the pleadings that the suit land is the ancestral property of the petitioner and respondents No. 1 to 22. Plaintiff is having 1/20th share therein. By filing the suit plaintiff sought declaration that the suit land is joint property of plaintiff and other defendants with a further relief to restrain petitioner and other defendants from creating third party right in the suit land without partition of the same.
3. An application under Order XXXIX rule 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction is also filed with the same averments. In support of application, plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed the affidavit of her
The correctness of the documents relied upon by the plaintiff in a suit should be determined during the trial and not at the interlocutory stage.
In summary proceedings under Act No. 13 of 1972, cross-examination cannot be claimed as a matter of course. The Act does not mandate oral evidence and allows parties to prove their case through affid....
Conducting cross examination in a suit is a specialized job. It is only with experience that a counsel develops skills for cross examination. Different Advocates may conduct cross-examination in diff....
A person summoned to produce a document under Sec. 65-B of the Evidence Act does not become a witness and cannot be cross examined unless and until called as a witness.
The right to lead evidence is pivotal to a fair trial and partakes of the character of natural justice and fair play. The recall of a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 should be for clarifying any do....
It is an archaic practice that during the evidence- collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the court does not proceed further without p....
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
