Skip to main content

WRITTEN STATEMENT & VAKALATNAMA & EXAMINATION AND CROSS-EXAMINATION

 WRITTEN STATEMENT & VAKALATNAMA &

EXAMINATION AND CROSS-EXAMINATION


WRITTEN STATEMENT

 Written statement is the defense of the defendants. 

 A 'defense' called the written statement, in general this is a reply of plaint, in which

defendant deny or admit the each and every allegation or facts given in the plaint.

 Denial or admission must be Para wise and clear.

 In the written statement defendant can put his case also under the heading additional

plea, and can states new facts or ground which is necessary to defeat the opponent.

 If defendant want to put his own claim against the plaintiff he can put it by way of set-

off and counterclaim under order 8 Rule 6 and 6A of C.P.C.

Drafting of Written Statement

 Order VIII of CPC provides for the filing of a written- statement, the particulars to be

contained therein and the manner of doing so. 

 It requires what a written statement should contain. 

 Before drafting the written statement, it is the duty of the defendant to study the plaint

thoroughly and all the documents submitted by the plaintiff with the plaint in support

of his claim.

 After the thorough study of the plaint and supported documents a para wise answer of

the plaint can be prepared.

 Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the written statement, set off and

counterclaim.


VAKALATNAMA

 A Vakalatnama is not defined either in the Power -of- Attorney Act, 1882 or in the

Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

 A Vakalatnama is the document empowering a lawyer to act for and on behalf of his

client.

 A Vakalatnama under which a lawyer is empowered to act may be general.

 It may specifically confer wide authority upon a lawyer.

 A pleader is defined under section 2(15) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as

follows-


 “Pleader” means any person entitled to appear and plead for another in Court and

includes an advocate, a vakil and an attorney of a High Court.

 Though in a sense a Vakalatnama is a power-of-attorney, in the matter of

construction, courts have drawn a distinction between the two and in the application

of the principles of construction, most of the courts while interpreting a power-of-

attorney strictly have interpreted a Vakalatnama liberally so as to infer the conferment

of large and wide powers on the counsel.


EXAMINATION AND CROSS-EXAMINATION

• Examination of a witness is asking the witness questions regarding relevant facts in

the case and recording the statements of witnesses as evidence.

• There are three parts to the examination of a witness and Section 138 of the Evidence

Act states that the witness must be examined in the following order which is provided

in the next slide :-

• First, the party that called the witness examines him, this process is

called EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF as mentioned under Section 137 of the Indian

Evidence Act.

• After the completion of the examination-in-chief, if the opposite party wants to, they

can take over the witness and cross-question him about his previous answers. The

opposite party may ask him any question regarding all the relevant facts and not

merely the facts discussed during the examination-in-chief. This process has been

described in Section 137 of the act as CROSS-EXAMINATION.

• If the party that called the witness sees the need to examine the witness again after

cross-examination, they may examine the witness one more time. This has been laid

down as 

• RE-EXAMINATION in Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996)

     POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996) INTRODUCTION The medical profession is perhaps the noblest profession among any remaining professions in India. For a patient, the specialist resembles God. What's more, God is trustworthy. In any case, that is the patient's opinion. As a general rule, doctors are individuals. Furthermore, to fail is human. Doctors might submit a slip-up. Doctors might be careless. The care staff might be imprudent. Two demonstrations of carelessness might bring about a lot more pressing issue. It very well might be because of gross carelessness. The sky is the limit. In such a situation, it is basic to figure out who was careless, and under what conditions. For this situation, the Supreme Court separated carelessness, impulsiveness, and foolishness. An individual is supposed to be a careless individual when he/she unintentionally submits a demonstration of exclusion and disregards a positive obligation that he/she ought to have perfor
Post a Comment
Read more

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more