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

2025 Supreme(MP) 61

ANIL VERMA
Anand Kumar Goyal – Appellant
Versus
Indar Bhushan Taretiya – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Sanjay Kumar Bahirani for petitioner; N.K. Gupta with Ms. Rashi Kushwah for respondent No. 1.

ORDER

1. The petitioner has preferred this miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dated 1.6.2024 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Karera, District Shivpuri in Civil Suit No.99A/2022, whereby an application under Order 16 Rule 1 read with section 151 of CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has requested to call the witness by sending summons because after recording the statement of witness Vijay Narware, matter was adjourned and due to threat given by plaintiff, witness Vijay Narware did not come to the Court, therefore, calling him through summons is quite necessary. The Trial Court has ignored the aforesaid facts. Hence, he prays that the impugned order be set aside and his application may be allowed.

3. Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection by supporting the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

5. From perusal of Order 16 rule 1 (3) of CPC, 1908, it is clear that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded, permit a party to call, whether by summoning thr

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