During a deposition if one of the party doesn’t show up, that it will have sever consequences, the Supreme Court stated. The Trial Court and High Court dismissed a suit filed by the plaintiff to recover damages in the form of a permanent injunction but accepted the concurrent new findings. This was observed by a bench consisting of Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari. On the basis of power of attorney instead of the older brother the younger brother appeared to be deposed and for cross examination as the older brother didn’t show up. The bench commented on this saying that there was no apparent reason as to why the defendant didn’t show up and that there should be adverse consequences for this. Iswar Bhai C. Patel vs. Harihar Behera, (1999) 3 SCC 457 was the judgment that was brought up by the court. In this particular case on the basis of principles contained in illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act this was regarding the a witness not appearing in a witness box for cross examination. 30 years old documents were submitted to the court by the plaintiff and they were not originals. These documents were dismissed without giving a proper explanation for this dismissal. Lakhi Baruah vs. Padma Kanta Kalita, (1996) 8 SCC 357 was another judgment that was referred to. A proper examination of evidence was done by the bench observed that the title to the suit property was not disputed by the defendants and therefore the plaintiffs has, more than sufficiently established their lawful possession of the suit property.