Order 14 cpc. Conflict between Order 20 Rule 5 and Order 14 Rule 2(2) 2019-02-10

Order 14 cpc Rating: 8,5/10 770 reviews

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

order 14 cpc

. The above members of the Joint Family it is averred, were joint in estate, mess and worship. The Courts should not therefore summon the original agreements except in very special circumstances as, for example, where the direct testimony of an officer of the Ministry is necessary to elucidate any material point arising in the case. Further, it is observed that the evidence should be permitted in exercise of its power under Section 151 of the Code. But dismissing a suite on merits of the case would be a decree. It is alleged by the respondent that after adjusting all the payments being made by the appellant, an amount of Rs. The trial court, therefore, in my opinion, was right in coming to the conclusion that the issue with regard to jurisdiction would be tried as a preliminary issue.

Next

Ramrameshwari Devi Vs. Nirmala Devi

order 14 cpc

Therefore what is the difference between notice and summons? Stay was granted on 15. Lalit Bagai is the sole proprietor of the said concern. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. Essentially, the court rules, or adjudicates, on the previous rulings challenged for their constitutionality. Assam, Calcutta, Kerala, Madras and Mysore. According to him, since the High Court has adopted the said course, there is no need to interfere with the same. If a party wants a particular individual be summoned or examined as witness, it must have recourse to Rules 1 and 1-A of Order 16 C.

Next

Order VII Rule 14 , Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code =The power under Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that nonproduction earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. But if it does so, it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic. The court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly, the court should take up and complete the case within a fixed time schedule so that the delay is avoided. Thirdly, if the application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs. With these principles, let us consider the merits of the case in hand. 11) The perusal of the materials placed by the plaintiff which are intended to be marked as bills have already been mentioned by the plaintiff in its statement of account but the 8Page 9 original bills have not been placed on record by the plaintiff till the date of filing of such application. It is further seen that during the entire trial, those documents have remained in exclusive possession of the plaintiff but for the reasons known to it, still the plaintiff has not placed these bills on record. In such circumstance, as rightly observed by the trial Court at this belated stage and that too after the conclusion of the evidence and final arguments and after reserving the matter for pronouncement of judgment, we are of the view that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to file such applications to fill the lacunae in its pleadings and evidence led by him. As rightly observed by the trial Court, there is no acceptable reason or cause which has been shown by the plaintiff as to why these documents were not placed on record by the plaintiff during the entire trial. Unfortunately, the High Court taking note of the words “at any stage” occurring in Order XVIII Rule 17 casually set aside the order of the trial Court, allowed those applications and permitted the plaintiff to place on record certain bills and also granted permission to recall PW

order 14 cpc

Sub Rule 2 refers to the discretion given to the court where the court may try issue relating to the jurisdiction of the court or the bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force as preliminary issue. We may add a word of caution. Order for inspection 1 Where the party served with notice under rule 15 omits to give such notice of a time for inspection or objects to give inspection, or offers inspection elsewhere than at the office of his pleader, the Court may, on the application of the party desiring it, make an order for inspection in such place and in such manner as it may think fit : Provided that the order shall not be made when and so far as the Court shall be of opinion that, it is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs. It may be pertinent to mention that the appellants also moved transfer application apprehending adverse order from the trial judge, which was also dismissed by the learned District Judge. Ordinarily, the successful party usually remains uncompensated in our courts and that operates as the main motivating factor for unscrupulous litigants. Hari Kishan Sanghi alongwith his son, daughter in law and grandson were impleaded as defendant no. Proceedings stayed by the High Court.

Next

Civil Lawyers in Delhi,India: Order 14 rule 2 of Cpc

order 14 cpc

It confers exclusive power upon the Court. The emphasis is laid on the subjective satisfaction of the Court. In a suit, a court may take certain decisions on objective considerations and those decisions must contain a discussion of the matters at issue in the suit and the reasons which led the court to pass the order. But where the application is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that nonproduction earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. Proclamation, attachment and arrest in case of non-attendance — The Court, on being satisfied that the person summoned has intentionally failed to attend or to produce the document in compliance with such summons without any lawful excuse and that his evidence or the document is material, may, issue a proclamation requiring him to attend to give evidence or produce the document at a time and place to be named therein.

Next

Production of documents by plaintiff ( Order 7 Rule 14 CPC.)

order 14 cpc

The said joint family, it is averred, resided in a tenanted property situated at 61, Darya Ganj, Delhi. He is required to sign the complaint himself which deters him from filing the complaint. What is laid down in the above provision is that if the Court is satisfied about such a necessity to cause any person to be examined as a witness, Court can summon such person as a witness. Profits for the wrongdoer 38. Needless to say any observations made herein will not impact the merits of the case. In this case the decision of the High Court on the point of the jurisdiction was set aside as the High Court had examined the written statement filed by the respondents in which it was claimed that the goods were not at all sold within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court and also that Respondent no.

Next

Order VII Rule 14 , Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code =The power under Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that nonproduction earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. But if it does so, it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic. The court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly, the court should take up and complete the case within a fixed time schedule so that the delay is avoided. Thirdly, if the application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs. With these principles, let us consider the merits of the case in hand. 11) The perusal of the materials placed by the plaintiff which are intended to be marked as bills have already been mentioned by the plaintiff in its statement of account but the 8Page 9 original bills have not been placed on record by the plaintiff till the date of filing of such application. It is further seen that during the entire trial, those documents have remained in exclusive possession of the plaintiff but for the reasons known to it, still the plaintiff has not placed these bills on record. In such circumstance, as rightly observed by the trial Court at this belated stage and that too after the conclusion of the evidence and final arguments and after reserving the matter for pronouncement of judgment, we are of the view that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to file such applications to fill the lacunae in its pleadings and evidence led by him. As rightly observed by the trial Court, there is no acceptable reason or cause which has been shown by the plaintiff as to why these documents were not placed on record by the plaintiff during the entire trial. Unfortunately, the High Court taking note of the words “at any stage” occurring in Order XVIII Rule 17 casually set aside the order of the trial Court, allowed those applications and permitted the plaintiff to place on record certain bills and also granted permission to recall PW

order 14 cpc

The learned Amicus Curiae has taken great pains in giving details of how the case has proceeded in the trial court by reproducing the entire court orders of 1992 suit. The High Court passed such order in favour of the plaintiff subject to payment of cost of Rs. It is further averred that out of the rental income of the ground floor of the property no. This Court has repeatedly held that courts should constantly endeavour to follow such a time schedule. Hari Kishan Sanghi were deposited, in joint account of Ram Kishan Sanghi and family.

Next

Order 16 Rule 14 Code of Civil Procedure

order 14 cpc

For detailed instructions on the subject. The additional issue regarding the claim of adverse possession by the three younger brothers was framed on 6. . It was contended by him that from the averments made in the plaint, it would be quite clear that cause of action, as against the applicant, does arise. Where any person arrested under a warrant is brought before the court in custody and cannot, owing to the absence of the parties or any of them, give the evidence or produce the document which he has been summoned to give or produce, the court may require him to give reasonable bail or other security for his appearance at such time and place as it thinks fit, and, on such bail or security being given, may release him, and, in default of his giving such bail or security, may Order him to be detained in the civil prison. Faruq, whether their omission to examine her was intentional or due to neglect.

Next

Order 16 Rule 14 Code of Civil Procedure

order 14 cpc

Counsel for defendant submits that this application has been filed by the defendant in view of the liberty granted to the defendant by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 26. Perused the application and gone through record. At the point in time when, the suit was first instituted, Mr. The first appeal filed by the other three younger brothers of Ram Parshad against Ram Parshad was dismissed on 09. Siddharth Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. The rent as per the lease deed is a sum of Rs. But if it does so, it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic.

Next

Code of Civil Procedure 1908

order 14 cpc

In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgments reported in Gampa Sai Ravi Kiran v. Summons to Defendants other than Defendant No. It is further seen that during the entire trial, those documents have remained in exclusive possession of the plaintiff but for the reasons known to it, still the plaintiff has not placed these bills on record. That was never the intention of the Parliament. Premature discovery Where the party from whom discovery of any kind or inspection is sought objects to the same, or any part thereof, the Court may if satisfied that the right to the discovery or inspection sought depends on the determination of any issue or question in dispute in the suit, or that for any other reason it is desirable that any issue or question in dispute in the suit should be determined before deciding upon the right to the discovery or inspection, order that such issue or question be determined first, and reserve the question as to the discovery or inspection. Civil Rules of Practice provide that a decree shall be drafted by the seventh day of the pronouncement of the judgment since time to file costs memo by the parties expires on the fifth day after judgment. In Roop Lal Sathi Vs.

Next