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

2006 Supreme(MP) 1186

SUBHASH SAMVATSAR
Laxman Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
D.D. Bansal for petitioners; Brijesh Sharma, Government Advocate for State.

ORDER

1. Heard on the question of admission.

This petition is filed by the petitioners who are plaintiffs under Article 27 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders Annexures P-l and P-2 dated 28.10.2004 and 13.12.2004 respectively passed by Civil Judge Class II Ashoknagar in Civil Suit No. 266A/90 whereby the Court below has closed the evidence of the plaintiffs.

2. Brief facts of the case is that the trial was fixed on 28.10.2004 for recording the evidence of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have filed affidavit of one of the witnesses Laxman Singh but on that date the plaintiffs could not keep Laxman Singh present in Court for cross-examination. It is stated that Laxman Singh was ailing on that date and adjournment was sought on that ground. The Court granted adjournment to the plaintiffs petitioners for cross-examination of Laxman Singh on payment of costs of Rs. 100/and fixed the case for 13.12.2004. However, while adjourning the case for cross-examination of Laxman Singh, the Court has closed the right of examination of other witnesses on the ground that their affidavits are not filed by the plaintiffs.

3. After perusal of the provisions of Order 18 Rule




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