<?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>2025 (1) TMI 1556 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462009</link>
    <description>HC upheld Trial Court&#039;s decision denying recall of defendant witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. The Court found the plaintiff, an advocate, had already conducted extensive cross-examination and the application was an attempt to unnecessarily prolong the trial. The HC dismissed the petition, ruling that the witness was fully examined on relevant points and no further cross-examination was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 May 2025 07:14:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=821809" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 1556 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462009</link>
      <description>HC upheld Trial Court&#039;s decision denying recall of defendant witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. The Court found the plaintiff, an advocate, had already conducted extensive cross-examination and the application was an attempt to unnecessarily prolong the trial. The HC dismissed the petition, ruling that the witness was fully examined on relevant points and no further cross-examination was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462009</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>