https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380067 Reopening of evidence may be allowed where rebuttal material becomes necessary only after the opponent's evidence is led, and the court should not apply Order 18 Rule 17 CPC mechanically. The court recognised that prior deposition from a criminal case could be relevant for rebuttal under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act when the second defendant did not enter the witness box and the need arose after defence evidence. Such permission can be controlled by costs to prevent prejudice, and the petitioner was permitted to reopen evidence and mark the certified copy of the deposition and criminal judgment as exhibits. en-us Wed, 20 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 May 2019 07:53:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380067 Reopening of evidence may be allowed where rebuttal material becomes necessary only after the opponent's evidence is led, and the court should not apply Order 18 Rule 17 CPC mechanically. The court recognised that prior deposition from a criminal case could be relevant for rebuttal under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act when the second defendant did not enter the witness box and the need arose after defence evidence. Such permission can be controlled by costs to prevent prejudice, and the petitioner was permitted to reopen evidence and mark the certified copy of the deposition and criminal judgment as exhibits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 20 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380067