MEENA DEVI v. PANMATI KUER
Case at a glance
- Bench
- MIHIR KUMAR JHA
Outcome
Dismissed
consequently, this application is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. XVIII r. 16
Judgment
Operative part
and whereunder, prayer of the plaintiff to examine and record evidence has been allowed in purported exercise of power under order XVIII Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court below while passing the impugned order has taken care not only of the compelling situation but has also recorded its reasons for exercise such power by holding that the plaintiff Panmati Kuer was extremely old and was also ailing and therefore it is essential to record her deposition. It has also taken into consideration that the plea of the petitioner opposing such prayer of the plaintiff was wholly unjustified, in as much as, merely because some tile suit no. 162 of 2003 was pending that could not have been taken away the substantive and valuable rights of the plaintiff to get an evidence recorded under order XVIII Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no error in the impugned order, consequently, this application is dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: consequently, this application is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XVIII r. 16.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.