NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

Karnataka High Court Grants Defendants Opportunity to Lead Evidence in Land Partition Suit”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.G. Pandit, has granted defendants in a land partition suit the opportunity to lead their evidence. The court’s decision came in response to an application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking to reopen the stage for defendants’ evidence.

The suit in question involved a dispute over the partition and separate possession of properties, with the defendants contending issues related to Will and Adoption. The trial court had denied the defendants an opportunity to present their evidence, leading to the legal challenge in the high court.

In its observation, the court highlighted the fundamental principle of justice, stating, “No party or litigant shall go out of the Court under the impression that he has not been provided sufficient opportunity to put forth his case or to defend his case.”

The court further emphasized the importance of ensuring that all parties receive fair opportunities to present their arguments in a legal dispute. The judgment underscored the need for a balanced and equitable legal process.

Consequently, the Karnataka High Court set aside the impugned order dated October 31, 2023, and allowed the application to reopen the stage for defendants’ evidence. The defendants were granted permission to lead their evidence within a stipulated timeframe of 15 days.

This ruling reflects the court’s commitment to upholding the principles of justice and providing all parties in a legal dispute with a fair chance to make their case. It serves as a reminder of the importance of due process and equitable treatment within the legal system.

Date of Decision: November 29, 2023

NINGAMMA VS RI. BASAVARAJU

Latest Legal News