TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a statement recorded under Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was required to be taken on oath in view of the amended pleading requirements; (ii) whether the legal representatives of a party could avoid examination under Order X and the consequence of refusal to appear; (iii) whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a direction for deposit of rent from the suit property.
Issue (i): Whether a statement recorded under Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was required to be taken on oath in view of the amended pleading requirements.
Analysis: A statement recorded under Order X is meant to elucidate matters in controversy and does not amount to evidence in the ordinary sense. However, after the amendment to Order VI Rule 15(4), every pleading must be supported by an affidavit. The earlier view that such statements need not be on oath was held to be outdated in light of the amended procedural framework.
Conclusion: The statement under Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was required to be recorded on oath.
Issue (ii): Whether the legal representatives of a party could avoid examination under Order X and the consequence of refusal to appear.
Analysis: The consequence of failure to appear in person is expressly provided in Order X Rule 4(2). The Court indicated that refusal to undergo examination does not create an unfettered option to avoid the process and that the procedural sanction is built into the rule itself.
Conclusion: The legal representatives could not avoid examination, and the consequence would be governed by Order X Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Issue (iii): Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a direction for deposit of rent from the suit property.
Analysis: On a prima facie assessment, the Court found that the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs indicated that the defendant had no right, title or interest left in the property to execute a later agreement to sell. In that context, the rentals being received from the property were directed to be secured in Court, with liberty reserved to seek reimbursement of expenses and taxes.
Conclusion: The plaintiffs were entitled to the direction for deposit of the rental amounts in Court.
Final Conclusion: The procedural objections under Order X were answered against the objecting defendants, and interim protection of the rental income was ordered in favour of the plaintiffs pending trial.
Ratio Decidendi: After the amendment to Order VI Rule 15(4), statements recorded under Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are to be supported on oath, and refusal to appear for examination attracts the consequence prescribed in Order X Rule 4(2).
TaxTMI 
