Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
Sanjeev Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
Vijay Kumar Tiwari – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff claims recovery of loan; defendant alleges adjustment against prior litigation expenses. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. framing of issues and presentation of testimonial and documentary evidence by both parties. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. trial and first appellate courts concurrently found the debt proved and the defense of set-off unsubstantiated. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. appellant challenges evidentiary procedure and seeks to introduce additional evidence (order 41 rule 27). (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. evidence analysis reveals contradictory documents and failure of defendant to prove liability set-off. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. no substantial question of law exists where only factual re-appreciation is sought; appeal dismissed. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant against the Judgment dated 01.08.2024 whereby the learned District Judge has upheld vide Order dated 19.04.2022 of the learned Civil Judge, wh
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
