https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296012 A successor Judge may pronounce judgment where the predecessor recorded evidence and heard arguments, because Order XVIII Rule 15 permits continuation from the stage left by the earlier Judge even after completion of trial. Once a suit has been proceeded ex parte and closed for judgment, the defendants cannot revive a lost right to cross-examine or address oral arguments. Affidavit evidence in an appealable suit remains admissible as examination-in-chief, provided the witness is available for cross-examination, and no prejudice is shown. A suit is not defeated merely because a proprietorship concern is described in its business name; at most, that is an irregularity in form. The plaintiff's passing-off relief and consequential decree were upheld. en-us Fri, 25 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Jun 2021 10:12:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296012 A successor Judge may pronounce judgment where the predecessor recorded evidence and heard arguments, because Order XVIII Rule 15 permits continuation from the stage left by the earlier Judge even after completion of trial. Once a suit has been proceeded ex parte and closed for judgment, the defendants cannot revive a lost right to cross-examine or address oral arguments. Affidavit evidence in an appealable suit remains admissible as examination-in-chief, provided the witness is available for cross-examination, and no prejudice is shown. A suit is not defeated merely because a proprietorship concern is described in its business name; at most, that is an irregularity in form. The plaintiff's passing-off relief and consequential decree were upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 25 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296012