Dismissed

Bhagwan Das v. Nisar

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2019SCCR/107/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an order refusing to admit the revisionist's examination in chief. The High Court held that since the revisionist had already cross-examined witnesses and case was at argument stage, no occasion existed for a second examination in chief, dismissing the revision.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 was dismissed as it failed to show any manifest error of law in the impugned order.

Bhagwan Das Vs Nisar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 5

¶2

Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 107 of 2019 Revisionist :- Bhagwan Das Opposite Party :- Nisar Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Kumar Chitragupt Counsel for Opposite Party :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava

¶3

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Chitragupt, learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist and Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent. This revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, has been filed paying to set aside the order dated 24.09.2019 whereby the examination in Chief filed by the defendant-revisionist being paper No.92 Ga has not been taken on record, and accordingly, paper No.92 Ga and the objection 94 Ga have been disposed of. Learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist submits that the defendant-revisionist has been afforded opportunity to file documentary and other evidences by order dated 20.10.2018, passed in SCC Suit No.15 of 2015 and yet the court below has not taken on record the examination-inchief being paper No.92 Ga. Therefore, the impugned order dated 24.09.2019 deserves to be set aside.

¶5

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent supports the impugned order.

¶6

I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the impugned order.

¶7

Undisputedly, by order dated 20.10.2018, the court below permitted the defendant-tenant/revisionist to further cross

¶8

examine the plaintiff-respondent and to file documentary or other evidences only to rebut the documentary evidences filed by the plaintiff. Pursuant to the said order, the defendant-revisionist further cross examined the plaintiff-respondent. In the impugned order, it is mentioned that the evidences have already been completed by the parties and the case is at the argument stage.

¶9

Under the circumstances, I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order. The defendant-tenant/revisionist has further cross examined the plaintiff-respondent as well as handwriting expert pursuant to the permission granted by the court below vide order dated 20.10.2018. Therefore, there was no occasion for the defendant-revisionist to file a second examination in chief being paper No.92 Ga.

¶10

For all the reasons aforestated, I do not find any manifest error of law in the impugned order. Therefore, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶11

Order Date :- 11.11.2019/vkg

Bhagwan Das v. Nisar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwan Das v. Nisar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lachhiram Vs Najma Bano

Kamlesh Kumar Gupta Vs Smt. Manorma Mishra (Deceased) and 5 Others

Sushil Prakash Bajpai Vs Civil Judge Senior Division, Kannauj and 3 Others

Sushil Babu Verma Vs Civil Judge (Senior Division),Farrukhabad and Another

Husain Khan and 8 Others Vs Ashish and 4 Others

Rajendra Kumar Verma Vs Civil Judge (Sd), Farrukhabad and 8 Others