SHAH HIRALAL HIMATLAL Vs. M G PATHAK
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
SHAH HIRALAL HIMATLAL
Click here to view full judgement.
V.B. RAJU -
(1.) This revision application arises out of insolvency proceedings. After a firm of Gordhandas Bapubhai was declared insolvent The receivers gave an application stating that a sale deed executed by the insolvent firm in favour of two persons who are opponents Nos. 1 and 2 in those proceedings was nominal and fraudulent The receivers also contended that opponents Nos. 1 and 2 paid the money to the insolvent firm for being paid to the partners of the firm who are opponents Nos. 3 to 6 in those proceedings. It was the case of the receivers that opponents Nos. 3 to 6 in those proceedings were partners of the insolvent firm.
(2.) After the receivers completed the evidence the learned Judge passed an order stating that opponents Nos. 3 to 6 should lead their evidence first before opponents Nos. 1 and 2 were asked to lead their evidence. It is this order that is challenged in revision. It is contended in revision that opponents Nos. 1 and 2 should lead their evidence first before opponents Nos. 3 to 6 are asked to lead their evidence.
(3.) On the question of right to begin and the question of leading evidence we have provisions in Order 18 Rule 1 C. P. Code which reads as follows:-- The plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that either in point of law or on some additional facts alleged by the plaintiff the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief which he seeks in which case the defendant has the right to begin. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 18 C. P. Code reads thus:-- The other party shall then state his case and produce his evidence (if any) and may then address the Court generally on the whole case.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.