<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (3) TMI 1874 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299899</link>
    <description>An application to summon production of a document under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC is intended to assist the court in obtaining material that may clarify the controversy in suit, and the power is exercised in judicial discretion. The document must relate to the matter in issue and be shown to be in the possession or control of the person from whom production is sought, subject to the Evidence Act. On the facts stated, the plaintiffs had filed a certified copy, asserted that the original registered sale deed was with the vendee, and showed its relevance; rejection solely on the ground that it was beyond the pleadings was not justified. The order was quashed and production of the original sale deed was directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2022 07:22:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=666090" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1874 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299899</link>
      <description>An application to summon production of a document under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC is intended to assist the court in obtaining material that may clarify the controversy in suit, and the power is exercised in judicial discretion. The document must relate to the matter in issue and be shown to be in the possession or control of the person from whom production is sought, subject to the Evidence Act. On the facts stated, the plaintiffs had filed a certified copy, asserted that the original registered sale deed was with the vendee, and showed its relevance; rejection solely on the ground that it was beyond the pleadings was not justified. The order was quashed and production of the original sale deed was directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299899</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>