Judgments - Civil Procedure
Anand Deep Singh Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Mesarsh H.B. Prodactus Baheriya Gadgad Kanpur Road Sagar M.P. Versus Mesarsh H.T. Products Baheriya Gadgad Kanpur Road Sagar M.P.
Ramkrishna Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & Anr.
M/S FROST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VERSUS M/S. MILAN DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS (P) LTD.
BRAJESH KUMAR, S/O SANTOSH KUMAR JAISWAL Vs. Santosh Kumar
Sakeel Ahmad Vs. Chandramohan (Dead) Through Lrs Ramesh Kumar Aashudani
Ajanta LLP Versus Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha d/b/a Casio Computer Co. Ltd. & Another
B.L. KASHYAP AND SONS LTD. VERSUS M/S JMS STEELS AND POWER CORPORATION & ANR.
M/S GARMENT CRAFT VERSUS PRAKASH CHAND GOEL
Suneel Prakash Sharma & Others Vs. Vivek Kumar Ruthiya & Another
Law laid down - Held: The power under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of Commissioner can also be exercised in order to ascertain the correct factual position, if the same is not ascertainable on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence. Full Judgment
Smt. Pooja Soni Versus Dinesh Kumar and others
Sughar Singh Versus Hari Singh (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors.
RAJENDRA BAJORIA AND OTHERS VERSUS HEMANT KUMAR JALAN AND OTHERS
SUDHIR KUMAR @ S. BALIYAN VERSUS VINAY KUMAR G.B.
NARAYAN DEORAO JAVLE (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. VERSUS KRISHNA & ORS.
Srihari Hanumandas Totala Versus Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors
Batsiya and ors. Vs. Ramgovind and ors.
Law Laid Down:- 1. Once examination-in-chief is affirmed by way of filing it before the trial Court, thereafter, it is not possible to withdraw the said affidavit. Deponent may file an affidavit subsequent to it and to add or supplement the facts for the reason that order XVIII Rule 4 of CPC does not limit itself to a single affidavit but nonetheless deponent ought not be allowed to keep on filing fresh affidavits to keep improving his case in routine manner. 2. Full Judgment
Smt. Indira Chaurasia (deceased) through LRs vs. Director, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti & others
Law laid down - (1) Where dispute exists between plaintiff and Krishi Upaj Mandi with regard to boundary wall and no any agricultural land is involved, therefore no relief could be sought against the State and provisions of Order 6 Rule 4(a) of CPC shall not be attracted. Full Judgment