Full Text
Translation output
A-46
% 28.09.2011
Present: Mr. I.J.S. Mehra and Ms. Tabbasum Firdause, Advocate for the petitioner.
+CM No. 18241/2011 (exemption) in CM(M) No. 1137/2011
*
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM(M) No. 1137/2011 and CM No. 18240/2011
The order impugned before this court is the order dated
20.09.2011 vide which two applications filed by the defendant had been dismissed; the petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of his application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(Code); by way of this application it had been contended that when the defendant was cross-examined, he was not in a proper frame of mind and he gave uncertain and belligerent answers; para 4 of the application states that in his cross-examination, certain material discrepancies and lapses have arisen which are not in consonance with the pleadings and the evidence filed by way of affidavit.
The purpose and purport of an order to be passed under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not to permit a lackadaisical or negligent party to fill in gaps or lacunas; it is only to elucidate or elaborate the dispute in question and in such a circumstance, the court may at any stage of the proceedings recall a witness; it is definitely not for the purpose as stated in the present application. The prayer made in this application had rightly
2011:DHC:19457 been rejected. Impugned order suffers from no iijifirmity.
Petition is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 rb
2011:DHC:19457
% 28.09.2011
Present: Mr. I.J.S. Mehra and Ms. Tabbasum Firdause, Advocate for the petitioner.
+CM No. 18241/2011 (exemption) in CM(M) No. 1137/2011
*
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM(M) No. 1137/2011 and CM No. 18240/2011
The order impugned before this court is the order dated
20.09.2011 vide which two applications filed by the defendant had been dismissed; the petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of his application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(Code); by way of this application it had been contended that when the defendant was cross-examined, he was not in a proper frame of mind and he gave uncertain and belligerent answers; para 4 of the application states that in his cross-examination, certain material discrepancies and lapses have arisen which are not in consonance with the pleadings and the evidence filed by way of affidavit.
The purpose and purport of an order to be passed under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not to permit a lackadaisical or negligent party to fill in gaps or lacunas; it is only to elucidate or elaborate the dispute in question and in such a circumstance, the court may at any stage of the proceedings recall a witness; it is definitely not for the purpose as stated in the present application. The prayer made in this application had rightly
2011:DHC:19457 been rejected. Impugned order suffers from no iijifirmity.
Petition is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 rb
2011:DHC:19457
JUDGMENT