Skip to content


Nathmal and anr. Vs. Phool Chand - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 290 1972
Judge
Reported in1974WLN(UC)224
AppellantNathmal and anr.
RespondentPhool Chand
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....section 112(c) does not lic.;there was thus no basis for the application for leave to produce the account books at that late stage of the trial, and it cannot be said that the trial court has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity within the meaning of section 115(c) of the code of civil procedure. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was..........far as the application of the plaintiffs dated february 18, 1970 regarding the production of the account books is concerned. the learned counsel has stated that he is not aggrieved against the order in so far as it relates to the promissory note.2. the plaintiffs (petitioners) had stated in their aforesaid application dated february 18, 1970 that they wanted to produce the evidence in question which, according to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this court, was for the production of account books, because they wanted to lead evidence in rebuttal of the defendant's plea in regard to consideration and payment. the learned trial judge has, however, stated in his aforesaid order dated january 12, 1972 that the learned counsel for the defendant had clearly stated.....
Judgment:

P.N. Shinghal, J.

1. Mr. Porwal has argued that the order of the trial court dated January 12, 1972 is not correct in so far as the application of the plaintiffs dated February 18, 1970 regarding the production of the account books is concerned. The learned Counsel has stated that he is not aggrieved against the order in so far as it relates to the promissory note.

2. The plaintiffs (petitioners) had stated in their aforesaid application dated February 18, 1970 that they wanted to produce the evidence in question which, according to the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners in this Court, was for the production of account books, because they wanted to lead evidence in rebuttal of the defendant's plea in regard to consideration and payment. The learned trial judge has, however, stated in his aforesaid order dated January 12, 1972 that the learned Counsel for the defendant had clearly stated before him that he did not want to press the question of consideration. The question of payment was connected with the question of consideration but, even so, the trial court has stated that it was not raised for trial. There was thus no basis for the application for leave to produce the account books at that late stage of the trial, and it cannot be said that the trial court has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity within the meaning of Section 115(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. There is thus no force in this revision petition and it is dismissed. As no one appears on behalf of the non-petitioner, there will be no order as to the costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //