The petitioner challenged an order rejecting their petition for re-examination of witnesses. The court found no illegality, infirmity or error of jurisdiction and dismissed the petition as the relevant facts were known at the time of filing the written statement.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.96 of 2020
======================================================
Bhirgu Sav @ Bhirgu Lal Son of late Saryu Sav, Resident of Village Saidpur Purani Bazar, Near Emambara, Post Office and Police Station- Khizarsarai, District- Gaya, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Madho Prasad Son of late Saryu Savo resident of Village- Sadipur, Purani Bazar, Near Emambara, Post Office and Police Station- Khizarsarai, District- Gaya, Bihar.
... ... Respondent
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nagendra Pd. Yadav, Advocate. For the Respondent/s:
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 27-02-2020
The present petition has been filed “for setting aside the order dated 09.09.2019 (Annexure-2) passed by the learned Munsif-II, Gaya in Partition Suit No. 25 of 2011 whereby and whereunder petition dated 31.10.2018 filed by the defendant/petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for re-examine of P.W.7/plaintiff (Madho Prasad) P.W. 4 (Raja Ram Das) P.W. 5 (Yogendra Chaudhary) P.W. 6 (Rafique Khan) and P.W. 8 (Amkresh singh) has been rejected”.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.96 of 2020 dt.27-02-2020 2/2
it was necessary to recall and cross-examine the witnesses aforesaid.
(Vikash Jain, J)
Ibrar//-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N.A. |
| Uploading Date | 02.03.2020 |
| Transmission Date | N.A |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the petition for re-examination of witnesses under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC was legally unsustainable?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhirgu Sav
Madho Prasad
Vikash Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
