{"id":265098,"date":"2022-04-06T16:00:34","date_gmt":"2022-04-06T10:30:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=265098"},"modified":"2022-04-06T13:22:36","modified_gmt":"2022-04-06T07:52:36","slug":"signatures-on-the-vakalat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/06\/signatures-on-the-vakalat\/","title":{"rendered":"AP HC | Signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard for want of expert opinion under S. 45 Evidence Act"},"content":{"rendered":"

Andhra Pradesh High Court: <\/strong>Ninala Surya, J., decided to not interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the civil writ petition.<\/p>\n

The facts of the case are such that the respondent\/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs 1, 71,600\/- with future interest and costs. The petitioner\/defendant filed written statement contending that the suit promissory note is a forged document and his signatures were forged. At the evidence stage, the petitioner filed an interim application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send a promissory note to the handwriting expert by receiving specimen writings in the four promissory notes which are annexed to the said application and to receive his specimen signatures in the open Court along with the vakalatnama and written statement for comparison. The respondent\/plaintiff filed counter and opposed the said application. After considering the matter, the Trial Court dismissed the said application. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition was filed.<\/p>\n

The Court relied on judgment Bande<\/em> Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad v. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu<\/em>, 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 467\u00a0<\/a> wherein it was observed \u201cNo time limit could be fixed for filing applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the disputed signature or writings to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion and same shall be left open to the discretion of the Court; for exercising such discretion when exigencies so demand, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n

Thus the view of the Trial Court that he has not taken steps seeking to refer the suit promissory note for expert opinion before commencement of Trial or prior thereto, but, after closure of the evidence on the plaintiff\u2019s side and as such the application is liable to be dismissed is not tenable in law.<\/p>\n

The Court further relied on judgment P.Padmanabhaiah v. G.Srinivasa Rao<\/em>, 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 517<\/a> wherein it was observed \u201cIn the well considered view of this Court, the defendants signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard as according to the plaintiff even by the date of the filing of the vakalat the defendant is clear in his mind about his stand in regard to the denial of his signatures <\/strong>on the suit promissory note and the endorsement thereon and as the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant might have designedly disguised his signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be ruled out prima facie.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u201c\u2026\u2026…There is no point in sending to an expert the documents of doubtful nature and character and add one more piece of unreliable evidence and burden the record by wasting the time and money of the parties.<\/strong> When there are no signatures of comparable and assured standard on the material record before the trial Court, it is unsafe to obtain the signatures of the defendant in open Court and send the said signatures and also his vakalat and written statement to an expert for obtaining his opinion after comparison of the signatures thereon with the disputed signatures on the suit promissory note, as any such opinion obtained from a handwriting expert on such material is not going to be of any help to the trial Court in effectively adjudicating the lis more particularly in the light of the admitted legal position that expert’s opinion evidence as to handwriting or signatures can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

In light of the above discussion the Court held Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. <\/em>[Byalla Devadas v. Sivapuram Rama Yogeswara Rao, Civil Revision Petition No. 67 of 2022, decided on 16-03-2022]<\/p>\n

Appearance<\/strong><\/p>\n

For petitioner- Mr.Nagaraju Naguru<\/p>\n

For respondent- Mr.Turaga Sai Surya<\/p>\n

\n

Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.<\/span><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Andhra Pradesh High Court: Ninala Surya, J., decided to not interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the civil writ petition. The <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":213668,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2521,16231,49082,44446,49081,30796],"class_list":["post-265098","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Evidence","tag-expert-opinion","tag-s-45-evidence-act","tag-signature","tag-vakalat","tag-written-statement"],"yoast_head":"\nAP HC | Signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard for want of expert opinion under S. 45 Evidence Act | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Signatures on the Vakalat\" \/>\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\/2022\/04\/06\/signatures-on-the-vakalat\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"AP HC | Signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard for want of expert opinion under S. 45 Evidence Act\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Signatures on the Vakalat\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/06\/signatures-on-the-vakalat\/\" \/>\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=\"2022-04-06T10:30:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 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\/2022\/04\/06\/signatures-on-the-vakalat\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/06\/signatures-on-the-vakalat\/\",\"name\":\"AP HC | Signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard for want of expert opinion under S. 45 Evidence Act | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/06\/signatures-on-the-vakalat\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/06\/signatures-on-the-vakalat\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-04-06T10:30:34+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Signatures on the Vakalat\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/06\/signatures-on-the-vakalat\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/06\/signatures-on-the-vakalat\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/06\/signatures-on-the-vakalat\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/06\/signatures-on-the-vakalat\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"AP HC | Signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard for want of expert opinion under S. 45 Evidence Act\"}]},{\"@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\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"AP HC | Signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard for want of expert opinion under S. 45 Evidence Act | SCC Times","description":"Signatures on the Vakalat","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\/2022\/04\/06\/signatures-on-the-vakalat\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"AP HC | Signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard for want of expert opinion under S. 45 Evidence Act","og_description":"Signatures on the Vakalat","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/06\/signatures-on-the-vakalat\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2022-04-06T10:30:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/06\/signatures-on-the-vakalat\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/06\/signatures-on-the-vakalat\/","name":"AP HC | Signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard for want of expert opinion under S. 45 Evidence Act | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/06\/signatures-on-the-vakalat\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/06\/signatures-on-the-vakalat\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg","datePublished":"2022-04-06T10:30:34+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Signatures on the Vakalat","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/06\/signatures-on-the-vakalat\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/06\/signatures-on-the-vakalat\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/06\/signatures-on-the-vakalat\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/06\/signatures-on-the-vakalat\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"AP HC | Signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard for want of expert opinion under S. 45 Evidence Act"}]},{"@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\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":265333,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/11\/weekly-legal-roundup-high-courts-legal-news-legalstories\/","url_meta":{"origin":265098,"position":0},"title":"Political clearance for Judges to visit abroad, Duty of Law Officers, Extra-marital affair of mother and more | Read 7 interesting legal stories of the week","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 11, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"7 Interesting Picks of the Week Gone by. Under Muslim Personal law, can Family Court dissolve the marriage of a couple? Bom HC elaborates The Division Bench of V.K. Jadhav and Sandipkumar C. More, JJ., addressed whether Family Court under Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 read with Section\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "High Court Round Up"","block_context":{"text":"High Court Round Up","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/high-court-round-up\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/Roundup_Weekly.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/Roundup_Weekly.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/Roundup_Weekly.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/Roundup_Weekly.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/Roundup_Weekly.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":300885,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/06\/andhra-pradesh-hc-upholds-the-order-dismissing-application-under-order-viii-rule-2-of-cpc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":265098,"position":1},"title":"Relevance of the documents sought under Order VII Rule 2 of CPC should be stated in the affidavit: Andhra Pradesh High Court upholds Order dismissing application","author":"Editor","date":"September 6, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIt is not stated in the affidavit as to how the documents are relevant to the suit except stating that, the documents are important and crucial documents to prove that the promissory note suit is a rank forged and materially altered.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"andhra pradesh high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/andhra-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/andhra-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/andhra-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/andhra-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":267274,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/23\/obligation-of-thumb-impression-and-signature-both-for-a-pro-note-under-negotiable-instruments-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":265098,"position":2},"title":"Obligation of Thumb Impression and Signature, both, for a Pro-Note under Negotiable Instruments Act: Mandatory or Not? Read Madras HC\u2019s verdict","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 23, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court: Teekaa Raman, J., observed that there is no mandatory provision under the Negotiable Instruments Act that both the signature and thumb impression has to be obtained for a pro-note and the lower Appellate Judge has totally misguided and misused the provision of the Negotiable Instruments Act, regarding\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\/2022\/05\/MadrasNI-Act.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MadrasNI-Act.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MadrasNI-Act.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MadrasNI-Act.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MadrasNI-Act.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":338598,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/07\/andhra-pradesh-high-court-recovery-money-promissory-note-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":265098,"position":3},"title":"Andhra Pradesh High Court upholds recovery of money with interest based on promissory note; Rejects claims of forgery","author":"Arunima","date":"January 7, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court cannot assume that every handwriting Expert who has been duly qualified by the Government will necessarily have such special skill and knowledge that he will always give accurate opinions on one disputed point.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Andhra Pradesh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"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":265098,"position":4},"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":[]},{"id":204022,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/21\/report-filed-under-order-7-rule-14-of-civil-procedure-code-accepted-as-evidence-impugned-order-affirmed\/","url_meta":{"origin":265098,"position":5},"title":"Report filed under Order 7, Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code, accepted as evidence; impugned order affirmed","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 21, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Sureshwar Thakur, J., dismissed this petition where an application for production of document relied on by respondent was in question. Facts of the case were that respondent, landlord of the petitioner had filed a petition seeking eviction of tenant\/petitioner on\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\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/265098","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\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=265098"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/265098\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/213668"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=265098"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=265098"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=265098"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}