TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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: Whether the incomplete evidence of a witness who repeatedly failed to subject himself to continuation of cross-examination should be retained on record or eschewed.
Analysis: The plaintiff had filed his proof affidavit and was cross-examined only in part on two occasions. Thereafter, despite repeated opportunities, he remained absent on several consecutive hearings, preventing completion of cross-examination. The Court held that a party who lets in evidence in chief but deliberately avoids further cross-examination denies the opposite side a fair opportunity to test the truth of the evidence. In a suit for injunction, the plaintiff's evidence is especially material and must be complete in law before it can be relied upon. The Court distinguished authorities dealing with incomplete defence evidence where non-completion was involuntary or attributable to unavoidable reasons, and held that such principles did not assist a plaintiff whose own conduct caused the incompleteness. It also held that Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 could not save evidence that was not complete in the eyes of law.
Conclusion: The incomplete evidence of the witness could not remain on record and had to be eschewed; the order refusing to do so was unsustainable.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
