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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to reopen evidence to mark the certified copy of the deposition of the second defendant from the criminal case for the purpose of rebuttal.
Analysis: The proposed document was sought not as a routine additional piece of evidence, but to confront the defendant's version after the third defendant entered the witness box and the second defendant did not do so. The prior deposition was said to be relevant under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the request for reopening was supported by the fact that the need for rebuttal evidence arose only after the defence evidence was led. The restrictive nature of Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was noted, but it was held that the provision is not to be applied mechanically where reopening is necessary to avoid prejudice and can be controlled by costs if required.
Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to reopen evidence and mark the certified copy of the deposition and the criminal judgment as exhibits.
Ratio Decidendi: Reopening of evidence may be permitted to receive genuinely necessary rebuttal material when the need arises only after the opponent's evidence, and the court may regulate such permission by imposing costs rather than refusing it on a rigid or mechanical application of procedure.