BABBAR SEWING MACHINE CO. versus TRILOK NATH MAHAJAN

BABBAR SEWING MACHINE CO. versus TRILOK NATH MAHAJAN

There was no wilful default by the defendant in complying with the court's order for production and inspection of documents; application of Order XI Rule 21 was unjustified. The trial court's and High Court's orders striking out the defence and denying cross-examination were contrary to law and must be set aside.

Parties
Defendant: Babbar Sewing Machine Co.; Plaintiff: Trilok Nath Mahajan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 August 1978
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated 14 8 1968 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 430 of 1967
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Order XI Rule 21 CPC, Striking Out Defence, Discovery and Inspection, Cross Examination Rights, Section 151 CPC
Civil Procedure Order XI Rule 21 CPC Striking Out Defence Discovery and Inspection Cross Examination Rights Section 151 CPC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Babbar Sewing Machine Co.

Defendant

Trilok Nath Mahajan

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated 14 8 1968 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 430 of 1967

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court was justified in striking out the defence of the defendant under Order XI Rule 21 of CPC
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was right in observing that the defendant cannot be permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses after defence is struck out

Ratio Decidendi

There was no wilful default by the defendant in complying with the court's order for production and inspection of documents; application of Order XI Rule 21 was unjustified. The trial court's and High Court's orders striking out the defence and denying cross-examination were contrary to law and must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Orders dated 23 May 1967 and 21 July 1967 striking out the defence set aside
  • Trial court directed to proceed with the trial according to law