{"id":204102,"date":"2018-10-23T15:06:10","date_gmt":"2018-10-23T09:36:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=204102"},"modified":"2018-10-25T16:39:02","modified_gmt":"2018-10-25T11:09:02","slug":"intendment-of-order-vii-rule-3-a-cpc-explained-litigant-should-not-be-permitted-to-bide-time-and-fill-in-lacuna-by-appearing-in-witness-box-after-examination-of-other-witnesses-bombay-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/23\/intendment-of-order-vii-rule-3-a-cpc-explained-litigant-should-not-be-permitted-to-bide-time-and-fill-in-lacuna-by-appearing-in-witness-box-after-examination-of-other-witnesses-bombay-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Intendment of Order XVIII Rule 3-A CPC explained \u2013 Litigant should not be permitted to bide time and fill in lacuna by appearing in witness box after examination of other witnesses: Bombay HC"},"content":{"rendered":"

Bombay High Court: <\/strong>A Single Judge Bench comprising of Rohit B. Deo, J. quashed the order of the trial court whereby plaintiff\u2019s application under Order XVIII Rule 3-A CPC seeking permission to examine his power of attorney (his son) he himself steps into the box.<\/p>\n

The petitioners were the defendants in the special civil suit instituted by the respondent-plaintiff seeking a decree of damages for defamation. The application was predicated on the assertion that the power of attorney holder was personally acquainted with the facts. The averment in the application was that the plaintiff was aged 80 years and suffering from various ailments. It was also averred that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants if the son of the plaintiff is examined before the plaintiff. The defendants opposed the application, inter alia<\/em>, denying that the plaintiff was suffering from various ailments. However, by the order impugned, the trial court allowed the plaintiff\u2019s application under Order XVIII Rule 3-A. Aggrieved thereby, the instant petition was filed by the defendant.<\/p>\n

The High Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, observed that the legislative mandate is that ordinarily where a litigant himself wishes to appear as a witness, he shall so appear before any other witness in his behalf has been examined. Rule 3-A confers a discretion on the Court to permit, for reasons to be recorded, the plaintiff to appear as his own witness at a later stage. However, implicit in the statutory scheme is the rider that the normal rule may be deviated from only in exceptional circumstances and for reasons recorded which must sustain judicial review. \u201cThe legislative object of bringing on statute Rule 3-A was to ensure that a litigant should not be permitted to bide his time and to fill in the lacuna or cover the loopholes after the other witnesses are examined.\u201d In the matter at hand, the Court found it difficult to believe that the plaintiff was suffering from various ailments to such an extent that he was not in a position to step into the witness box. Therefore, the Court held that the order impugned militate against the object and intendment of Order XVIII Rule 3-A, which was accordingly quashed. [Sanj Dainik Lokopchar v. Gokulchand Govindlal Sananda,2018 SCC OnLine Bom 3336<\/b><\/a>, decided on 11-10-2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Rohit B. Deo, J. quashed the order of the trial court whereby plaintiff\u2019s <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":74381,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[3042,12231,30355,32190,32189],"class_list":["post-204102","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Judicial_Review","tag-legislative-intent","tag-litigant","tag-order-vii-rule-3-a-cpc","tag-witness-box"],"yoast_head":"\nIntendment of Order XVIII Rule 3-A CPC explained \u2013 Litigant should not be permitted to bide time and fill in lacuna by appearing in witness box after examination of other witnesses: Bombay HC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/23\/intendment-of-order-vii-rule-3-a-cpc-explained-litigant-should-not-be-permitted-to-bide-time-and-fill-in-lacuna-by-appearing-in-witness-box-after-examination-of-other-witnesses-bombay-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Intendment of Order XVIII Rule 3-A CPC explained \u2013 Litigant should not be permitted to bide time and fill in lacuna by appearing in witness box after examination of other witnesses: Bombay HC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Rohit B. Deo, J. quashed the order of the trial court whereby plaintiff\u2019s\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/23\/intendment-of-order-vii-rule-3-a-cpc-explained-litigant-should-not-be-permitted-to-bide-time-and-fill-in-lacuna-by-appearing-in-witness-box-after-examination-of-other-witnesses-bombay-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-10-23T09:36:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-25T11:09:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1331\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/23\/intendment-of-order-vii-rule-3-a-cpc-explained-litigant-should-not-be-permitted-to-bide-time-and-fill-in-lacuna-by-appearing-in-witness-box-after-examination-of-other-witnesses-bombay-hc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/23\/intendment-of-order-vii-rule-3-a-cpc-explained-litigant-should-not-be-permitted-to-bide-time-and-fill-in-lacuna-by-appearing-in-witness-box-after-examination-of-other-witnesses-bombay-hc\/\",\"name\":\"Intendment of Order XVIII Rule 3-A CPC explained \u2013 Litigant should not be permitted to bide time and fill in lacuna by appearing in witness box after examination of other witnesses: Bombay HC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/23\/intendment-of-order-vii-rule-3-a-cpc-explained-litigant-should-not-be-permitted-to-bide-time-and-fill-in-lacuna-by-appearing-in-witness-box-after-examination-of-other-witnesses-bombay-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/23\/intendment-of-order-vii-rule-3-a-cpc-explained-litigant-should-not-be-permitted-to-bide-time-and-fill-in-lacuna-by-appearing-in-witness-box-after-examination-of-other-witnesses-bombay-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-10-23T09:36:10+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-25T11:09:02+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/23\/intendment-of-order-vii-rule-3-a-cpc-explained-litigant-should-not-be-permitted-to-bide-time-and-fill-in-lacuna-by-appearing-in-witness-box-after-examination-of-other-witnesses-bombay-hc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/23\/intendment-of-order-vii-rule-3-a-cpc-explained-litigant-should-not-be-permitted-to-bide-time-and-fill-in-lacuna-by-appearing-in-witness-box-after-examination-of-other-witnesses-bombay-hc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/23\/intendment-of-order-vii-rule-3-a-cpc-explained-litigant-should-not-be-permitted-to-bide-time-and-fill-in-lacuna-by-appearing-in-witness-box-after-examination-of-other-witnesses-bombay-hc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"width\":1331,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/23\/intendment-of-order-vii-rule-3-a-cpc-explained-litigant-should-not-be-permitted-to-bide-time-and-fill-in-lacuna-by-appearing-in-witness-box-after-examination-of-other-witnesses-bombay-hc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Intendment of Order XVIII Rule 3-A CPC explained \u2013 Litigant should not be permitted to bide time and fill in lacuna by appearing in witness box after examination of other witnesses: Bombay HC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Intendment of Order XVIII Rule 3-A CPC explained \u2013 Litigant should not be permitted to bide time and fill in lacuna by appearing in witness box after examination of other witnesses: Bombay HC | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/23\/intendment-of-order-vii-rule-3-a-cpc-explained-litigant-should-not-be-permitted-to-bide-time-and-fill-in-lacuna-by-appearing-in-witness-box-after-examination-of-other-witnesses-bombay-hc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Intendment of Order XVIII Rule 3-A CPC explained \u2013 Litigant should not be permitted to bide time and fill in lacuna by appearing in witness box after examination of other witnesses: Bombay HC","og_description":"Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Rohit B. Deo, J. quashed the order of the trial court whereby plaintiff\u2019s","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/23\/intendment-of-order-vii-rule-3-a-cpc-explained-litigant-should-not-be-permitted-to-bide-time-and-fill-in-lacuna-by-appearing-in-witness-box-after-examination-of-other-witnesses-bombay-hc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-10-23T09:36:10+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-25T11:09:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1331,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/23\/intendment-of-order-vii-rule-3-a-cpc-explained-litigant-should-not-be-permitted-to-bide-time-and-fill-in-lacuna-by-appearing-in-witness-box-after-examination-of-other-witnesses-bombay-hc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/23\/intendment-of-order-vii-rule-3-a-cpc-explained-litigant-should-not-be-permitted-to-bide-time-and-fill-in-lacuna-by-appearing-in-witness-box-after-examination-of-other-witnesses-bombay-hc\/","name":"Intendment of Order XVIII Rule 3-A CPC explained \u2013 Litigant should not be permitted to bide time and fill in lacuna by appearing in witness box after examination of other witnesses: Bombay HC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/23\/intendment-of-order-vii-rule-3-a-cpc-explained-litigant-should-not-be-permitted-to-bide-time-and-fill-in-lacuna-by-appearing-in-witness-box-after-examination-of-other-witnesses-bombay-hc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/23\/intendment-of-order-vii-rule-3-a-cpc-explained-litigant-should-not-be-permitted-to-bide-time-and-fill-in-lacuna-by-appearing-in-witness-box-after-examination-of-other-witnesses-bombay-hc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","datePublished":"2018-10-23T09:36:10+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-25T11:09:02+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/23\/intendment-of-order-vii-rule-3-a-cpc-explained-litigant-should-not-be-permitted-to-bide-time-and-fill-in-lacuna-by-appearing-in-witness-box-after-examination-of-other-witnesses-bombay-hc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/23\/intendment-of-order-vii-rule-3-a-cpc-explained-litigant-should-not-be-permitted-to-bide-time-and-fill-in-lacuna-by-appearing-in-witness-box-after-examination-of-other-witnesses-bombay-hc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/23\/intendment-of-order-vii-rule-3-a-cpc-explained-litigant-should-not-be-permitted-to-bide-time-and-fill-in-lacuna-by-appearing-in-witness-box-after-examination-of-other-witnesses-bombay-hc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","width":1331,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/23\/intendment-of-order-vii-rule-3-a-cpc-explained-litigant-should-not-be-permitted-to-bide-time-and-fill-in-lacuna-by-appearing-in-witness-box-after-examination-of-other-witnesses-bombay-hc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Intendment of Order XVIII Rule 3-A CPC explained \u2013 Litigant should not be permitted to bide time and fill in lacuna by appearing in witness box after examination of other witnesses: Bombay HC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":217735,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/06\/del-hc-partition-suit-rejected-under-or-7-r-11-cpc-for-want-of-cause-of-action-in-light-of-general-power-of-attorney-and-requisition-deed\/","url_meta":{"origin":204102,"position":0},"title":"Del HC | Partition suit rejected under Or. 7 R. 11 CPC for want of cause of action in light of General Power of Attorney and Requisition Deed","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 6, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0Pratibha M. Singh, J. allowed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant in the subject partition suit. The said application sought rejection of plaint (partition suit) on two grounds -- that the suit lacked cause of action and the suit was time-barred. The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":218737,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/29\/bom-hc-prayer-for-withdrawal-and-liberty-to-file-fresh-suit-cannot-be-split-into-two-plaintiff-entitled-to-file-fresh-suit-even-if-no-express-liberty-given\/","url_meta":{"origin":204102,"position":1},"title":"Bom HC | Prayer for withdrawal and liberty to file fresh suit cannot be split into two: plaintiff entitled to file fresh suit even if no express liberty given","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 29, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court:\u00a0Sandeep K. Shinde, J. dismissed an application filed under Section 115 CPC taking exception to the order of the Civil Judge whereby he rejected applicants application seeking rejection of plaint by the respondent-plaintiff. The applicant-defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) read with Order 23\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":205926,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/29\/court-not-to-go-into-the-merits-of-averments-at-the-time-of-admission-of-application-for-amendment-of-witness-statement-del-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":204102,"position":2},"title":"Court not to go into merits of averments at the time of admission of application for amendment of witness statement: Del HC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 29, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0A Single Judge Bench comprising of Jayant Nath, J. allowed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of witness statement filed by the defendants in the suit concerned. The suit against defendants was listed for plaintiff's evidence wherein the charge had already been framed. It\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":266446,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/05\/exercise-of-power-involving-application-under-or-1-r-10-of-cpc-is-completely-different-from-exercise-of-power-under-or-21-rules-97-99-101-of-cpc-orissa-high-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":204102,"position":3},"title":"Ori HC | Exercise of power involving Application under Or. 1 R. 10 of CPC is completely different from Exercise of Power under Or. 21 Rules 97, 99 & 101 of CPC; Scope of latter is much wider","author":"Editor","date":"May 5, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Orissa High Court: Biswanath Rath, J., rejected the application being devoid of merits. The instant C.M.P. involves allowing an Application being moved by a third party in an Execution Proceeding taking resort to the provision under Order 21 Rules 97, 99 & 101 of Civil procedure code i.e. CPC after\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":251632,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/23\/rejection-of-suit\/","url_meta":{"origin":204102,"position":4},"title":"Are Courts empowered to grant time to rectify defects in plaint where the plaint had been rejected under Or. 7 R. 11(d)? SC clarifies","author":"Editor","date":"July 23, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud* and M R Shah, JJ., affirmed the judgment of Bombay High Court wherein the Single Judge had held that where the suit appears from the statements in the plaint to be barred by any law, the defects are not curable. Background\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":225066,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/03\/del-hc-permission-to-amend-written-statement-after-plaintiffs-evidence-denied-in-view-of-proviso-to-order-6-rule-17-cpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":204102,"position":5},"title":"Del HC | Permission to amend written statement after plaintiff’s evidence denied in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 3, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0Pratibha M. Singh, J., dismissed a petition filed against the order of the trial court whereby it had rejected the petitioner-defendant's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (amendment of pleadings)\u00a0seeking amendment in their written statement. The instant suit which was filed for specific performance in 2005 had\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204102","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=204102"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204102\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/74381"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204102"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204102"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204102"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}