TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g that such applications could not be allowed in view of Section 23 of the Evidence Act (for short 'the Act'). 2. The short facts leading to the present Civil Revisions are as follows : The present petitioners along with Opposite Party No. 3 had filed the suit bearing No. 64 of 1981 before the learned Munsif, Jagatsinghpur against the present Opposite Parties 1 and 2 with a prayer to declare that they had acquired their right of easement in respect of the Schedule-C land of the plaint schedule and to restrain the Opposite Parties by way of injunction not to interfere with their peaceful enjoyment of the said pathway. 2A. While the suit was in progress, with the intervention of gentlemen of the locality, a joint compromise p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 890 of 1989 is filed, it appears that the defendants objected to the petition of the plaintiffs filed under Order XVIII, Rule 17 of the Code read with Section 151 of the Code on the ground that the plaintiffs were not intending to bring any new evidence to the notice of the Court and had failed to cross-examine D.W. 5 on the matters already on record. The purpose of that petition is to delay the hearing of the suit and to harass the defendants. The petitioners also filed at a belated stage. Order XVIII, Rule 17 of the Code which empowers the court to recall and examine the witnesses is quoted below : Order XVIII Rule 17: Court may recall and examine witness ; The Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, when relevant: In civil cases no admission is relevant, if it is made either upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be given, or under circumstances from which the Court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it should not be given. Explanation : Nothing in this section shall be taken to exempt any barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil from giving evidence of any matter of which he may be compelled to give evidence under Section 126. 9. In the compromise petition filed on 5-3-82, there is admission of the parties regarding existence of the pathway over C.S. Plot No. 244. In the petition filed in Civil Revision No. 889 of 1989, the petitioners have averred that the compromise petition was file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken by the High Court of Oudh in the case of Kuar Nageshar Sahai v. Shiam Bahadur AIR 1922 Oudh 231 where a Division Bench of the Court held follows (at page 234): xx xx xx. Parties often willing to make admissions for the purpose of effecting a compromise to which it would be unfair to hold them if the compromise falls through, xx xx xx A similar view was also taken in the case of Smt. Surjit Kaur v. Gurcharan Singh in which the Court held thus (at page 19): xx xx xx. In any case, this letter, admittedly, was written during the period when the compromise talks going on. The inference drawn by the learned Judge from all these circumstances was that the letter was written at a time when the parties had agreed that no evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
