Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Smriti Madan Kansagra VS Perry Kansagra...
Smriti Madan Kansagra VS Perry Kansagra - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 642 : In civil cases, if a party intends to bring evidence to impeach or contradict the testimony of a witness, it is incumbent upon that party to cross-examine the relevant witness to seek any explanation in respect of a version they wish to rely upon. Failure to cross-examine on a particular point means that the party cannot later raise an argument at the trial or appellate stage to infer a fact when the opportunity to cross-examine was not availed of, as this would violate the principle of fair play. This rule is grounded in the principle that a party must give the witness an opportunity to explain or answer when in the witness box, especially when intending to challenge the witness''''s credibility.Checking relevance for Surender Singh VS State (NCT Of Delhi)...
Checking relevance for Arvind Singh VS State of Maharashtra...
Arvind Singh VS State of Maharashtra - 2020 8 Supreme 302 : In civil cases, if a matter sworn to by one party in the pleadings is not challenged either in the pleadings or through cross-examination by the other party, it must be accepted as fully established. This principle is derived from the case of Maroti Bansi Teli v. Radhabai, which holds that unchallenged facts in pleadings or during cross-examination are deemed accepted. Additionally, the rule of putting one''''s version in cross-examination is considered a matter of essential justice, not merely technical, and failure to cross-examine witnesses on a particular fact means the statement of the witness is not disputed and is ordinarily accepted. The High Court of Calcutta in A.E.G. Carapiet v. A.Y. Derderian emphasized that a party is obliged to put their case during cross-examination of the opposite party''''s witnesses. The Patna High Court in Karnidan Sarda v. Sailaja Kanta Mitra further stated that when witnesses are not tested through cross-examination, their evidence is to be ordinarily accepted. Therefore, a point not challenged in cross-examination in a civil case is treated as established and accepted by the court.Checking relevance for Kamaladevi Agarwal VS State Of W. B. ...
Checking relevance for Ram Rati VS Mange Ram...
Ram Rati VS Mange Ram - 2016 2 Supreme 396 : Under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a witness cannot be recalled for the purpose of further elaboration on aspects left out in evidence already closed. The power under Rule 17 is limited to clarifying any position or doubt and cannot be used to fill lacunae in evidence or to address omissions in the original testimony. The court may recall a witness only to clarify ambiguities, not to allow a party to expand on points not previously addressed during examination or cross-examination. Therefore, a point not challenged in cross-examination cannot be raised later through the recall of a witness under Rule 17.Checking relevance for Sat Paul VS Delhi Administration...
Checking relevance for Chung Chuck VS Rex...
Checking relevance for Balvantbhai Hirabhai Patel VS State of Gujarat...
Checking relevance for Capitol Art House (P) Limited VS Neha Datta...
Checking relevance for Bijoy Kumar Roy, son of late Jay Kumar Roy VS State of Jharkhand...
Checking relevance for Rakesh Singh VS Anil Madanmohan Gulati...
Checking relevance for On The Death Of Abdur Rouf His Legal Heirs Mrs. Saleha Khanam (Wife) S/O Late Mojhar Ali VS On The Death Of Nilima Das Guptaand Her Legal Heirs Sri Prasanta Dasgupta, S/O Nilima Dasgupta...
Checking relevance for Shailender Sharma, son of Late Prof. Nilambar Dev Sharma VS UT of Jammu and Kashmir, through SHO, Police Station City Jammu...
Checking relevance for Kuppili Veerachari VS Reddipalli Padmavathi...
Kuppili Veerachari VS Reddipalli Padmavathi - Current Civil Cases (2023) : In civil cases, if a fact is not challenged during cross-examination, it cannot later be contradicted by evidence. Specifically, the court held that the defendants did not challenge the plaintiff''''s statement about her husband, Sri Reddipalli Govinda Rao, being present at the time of the promissory note transaction during cross-examination. As a result, the proposed evidence to contradict that statement was not admissible, as it sought to impeach credibility on a collateral fact that was never contested in the trial. This aligns with Section 153 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which prohibits evidence to contradict a witness on questions testing veracity unless the issue was raised during cross-examination.Checking relevance for Mitthulal VS State Of M. P. ...
Checking relevance for State Of H. P. VS Surinder Mohan...
Checking relevance for KANBI MAVJI KHIMJI VS KANBI MANJIBHAI ABJIBHAI...
Checking relevance for R. V. E. Venkatachala Gounder VS Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V. P. Temple...
R. V. E. Venkatachala Gounder VS Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V. P. Temple - 2003 8 Supreme 193 : In civil cases, if a fact is not challenged during cross-examination, it is considered unchallenged and may be accepted as credible. Specifically, in the case discussed, the appellant deposed under oath that the books of accounts were maintained properly by his father until 1959 and by himself thereafter, and these facts were not challenged in cross-examination. No questions were asked about the authenticity of the books or the entries made therein, and the court found that there was no reason to doubt their veracity. This demonstrates that unchallenged testimony during cross-examination can be given weight in determining the truth of a fact in civil proceedings.
