#parties Archives - Prime Legal

The case of Mohammed Abdul Wahid Vs Nilofer & Anr. (Special Leave Petition (Civil)No.14445 of 2021), there were two contradictory judgements by the high court of Bombay single bench. The judgements address the difference between a party to a suit and a witness in a suit, as well as when it is permissible to produce documents directly during cross-examination. The court determined that a witness and a party to a suit are not the same, and evidence cannot be produced during cross-examination. On appeal, the division bench upheld the decision. The current petition concerns the validity of Bombay High Court judgements.

The court concluded that neither a witness nor a party to a suit serves a different purpose in the witness box and that Order XVI Rule 21’s “so far as it is applicable” clause does not suggest otherwise. It was noted that neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant is prohibited from appearing before the court to present evidence by the term “witness.”

In regards to the production of evidence, the court decided that the parties to the lawsuit would also profit from the freedom to produce documents for the two purposes of cross-examining witnesses and refreshing one’s memory. The court noted that if these documents are not used to properly ask questions of and receive answers from either party in a lawsuit, the other party may not be able to adequately prove their case, which could seriously jeopardise the proceedings. As a result, the proposition that the law distinguishes between a party to a suit and a witness for the purposes of evidence is invalid. It is well established law that what is not pleaded cannot be argued, because the other party must be aware of the contours of the case in order to adjudicate it.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read the judement

In the case of K. Balasubramani vs. The Tamil Nadu Government (Special Leave Petition(C)Nos.8251-8252/2022), the petitioners are tenants in various shops owned by the respondents, who are landlords. The respondents oversee the affairs of a Hindu temple under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1959.

Section 78 of the Act declares the tenants to be encroachers after the lease period has expired. The High Court affirmed the impugned action and directed the tenants to give the landlord peaceful, vacant possession of the premises, which each tenant has individually occupied, in accordance with the impugned judgement and order dated, which was passed in a batch of writ petitions filed by the tenants.

As a result, the counsels for both parties reached an amicable resolution to the issue at hand on mutually acceptable terms and on the basis of the instructions given to the learned counsel for each party.

The following are the agreed terms:

The authorities’ ejectment order, issued in accordance with the Act’s provisions, is upheld.
With respect to 19 tenants, the landlord may initiate legal proceedings for possession immediately. Despite the opportunities provided thus far, they have yet to pay rent/occupation charges.
Regarding the remaining 51 tenants: The eviction decree for each of these 51 tenants is upheld. They may, however, continue to use the area for an additional six months, as both parties have mutually agreed. The occupants of the demised premises have agreed, via their respective lawyers, to give the landlord peaceful and vacant possession of the properties by July 31, 2024. It is the revised rent from 2015 that these tenants are responsible for paying, not the rent from 2018. As such, they will continue to pay the rent at the rates changed in 2015 for as long as they are able to remain in the premises, in addition to paying off any outstanding arrears of rent, damages, or mesne profit, if any, within four months of today.

The court ruled that it is clear among the parties that the landlords intend to develop the property and provide better facilities to pilgrims. However, if the landlord ever develops by constructing shops, these 51 tenants will be given preferential treatment, subject to their participation in the allotment process and matching the highest bidder’s price.

With great endeavour both the parties reached an agreement to resolve this issue, bringing the protracted litigation to an end. Thus, the court disposed the petition.

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement

Best Lawyers in Bangalore

Producing the documents during cross examination is permissible under law: Supreme Court

The Counsels reached an amicable resolution to the issue at hand through mutual agreement among the parties in the Supreme Court.