Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 22 views

    Appln Cross Plaintiff Witness 1

    Uploaded by

    varsha
    The Defendant No. 3's lawyer has filed an application requesting that the court recall Plaintiff's Witness No. 1 (PW1) to allow Defendant No. 3 to cross-examine the witness. Defendant No. 3 was unable to cross-examine PW1 previously when the matter was adjourned due to a separate application filed by Defendant No. 1. The lawyer argues that cross-examining PW1 is crucial for Defendant No. 3 to establish Defendant No. 1's liability as the insurer of the vehicle involved in an accident and to show that the Plaintiff has a right to recover claims from the insured. Granting the application would not prejudice the Plaintiff or other defendants.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Appln Cross Plaintiff Witness 1

    Uploaded by

    varsha
    22 views4 pages
    The Defendant No. 3's lawyer has filed an application requesting that the court recall Plaintiff's Witness No. 1 (PW1) to allow Defendant No. 3 to cross-examine the witness. Defendant No. 3 was unable to cross-examine PW1 previously when the matter was adjourned due to a separate application filed by Defendant No. 1. The lawyer argues that cross-examining PW1 is crucial for Defendant No. 3 to establish Defendant No. 1's liability as the insurer of the vehicle involved in an accident and to show that the Plaintiff has a right to recover claims from the insured. Granting the application would not prejudice the Plaintiff or other defendants.

    Original Title

    Appln_Cross_Plaintiff_Witness_1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Defendant No. 3's lawyer has filed an application requesting that the court recall Plaintiff's Witness No. 1 (PW1) to allow Defendant No. 3 to cross-examine the witness. Defendant No. 3 was unable to cross-examine PW1 previously when the matter was adjourned due to a separate application filed by Defendant No. 1. The lawyer argues that cross-examining PW1 is crucial for Defendant No. 3 to establish Defendant No. 1's liability as the insurer of the vehicle involved in an accident and to show that the Plaintiff has a right to recover claims from the insured. Granting the application would not prejudice the Plaintiff or other defendants.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    22 views4 pages

    Appln Cross Plaintiff Witness 1

    Uploaded by

    varsha
    The Defendant No. 3's lawyer has filed an application requesting that the court recall Plaintiff's Witness No. 1 (PW1) to allow Defendant No. 3 to cross-examine the witness. Defendant No. 3 was unable to cross-examine PW1 previously when the matter was adjourned due to a separate application filed by Defendant No. 1. The lawyer argues that cross-examining PW1 is crucial for Defendant No. 3 to establish Defendant No. 1's liability as the insurer of the vehicle involved in an accident and to show that the Plaintiff has a right to recover claims from the insured. Granting the application would not prejudice the Plaintiff or other defendants.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND

    SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU


    I.A. NO. / 2018
    IN
    O.S. NO. 7755 OF 2012
    BETWEEN

    BANK OF INDIA …………PLAINTIFF

    AND
    M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
    CO. LTD & ORS …………DEFENDANTS

    APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL


    PROCEDURE FILED ON BEHALF OF D3

    For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum of Facts, the counsel
    for the Defendant No.3 most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be
    pleased to re-call PW1 and permit the Defendant No.3 to cross examine PW1, in
    the interest of justice and equity.

    Dated: 21.08.2018

    Bangalore Advocate for Defendant No.3


    IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND
    SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU

    I.A. NO. / 2018


    IN
    O.S. NO. 7755 OF 2012
    BETWEEN

    BANK OF INDIA …………PLAINTIFF

    AND
    M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
    CO. LTD & ORS …………DEFENDANTS

    APPLICATION UNDER SECTON 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL


    PROCEDURE FILED ON BEHALF OF D3

    For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum of Facts, the counsel
    for the Defendant No.3 most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be
    pleased to reopen the stage for cross examination of PW1, in the interest of
    justice and equity.

    Dated: 21.08.2018

    Bangalore Advocate for Defendant No.3


    IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND
    SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU
    I.A. NO. / 2018
    IN
    O.S. NO. 7755 OF 2012
    BANK OF INDIA …………PLAINTIFF

    AND
    M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
    CO. LTD & ORS …………DEFENDANTS

    MEMORANDUM OF FACTS

    I, Shiva K.V, Advocate for the Defendant No.3 do hereby submit as follows;

    1. I submit that I am the counsel appearing for the Defendant No.3 and am
    acquainted with the facts leading up to this case.

    2. I submit that when the matter was posted for cross examination of PW1,
    Defendant No.1 filed an I.A under Order 7 Rule 11A of the Code of Civil
    Procedure Code seeking rejection of plaint and this Hon’ble Court was
    pleased to adjourn the matter for Objections to the I.A referred supra.

    3. I submit that due to the aforesaid reason, Defendant no.3 was not able to
    cross examine PW1.

    4. I submit that on behalf of the Defendant No.3, we want to cross examine


    the Plaintiff Witness no.1 to establish the liability of Defendant No.1 as
    the insurer of the vehicle that met with an accident and caused the
    untimely demise of the owner of the vehicle and also that the Plaintiff has
    the absolute right over the insured’s claim. I submit that it is crucial for
    the Defendant no.3 to establish the liability as narrated supra.

    5. I further submit that if the accompanying application is not allowed, the


    Defendant No.3 would be put to irreversible loss and hardship whereas no
    prejudice would be caused to the Plaintiff or the other Defendants if the
    application is allowed.
    In view of the above, I most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased
    to allow the accompanying application as prayed for in the interest of justice and
    equity.

    Dated: 21.08.2018

    Bangalore Advocate for Defendant No.3

    You might also like