SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(AP) 693

S.S.HUSSAINI
Nagumothu Sriharinath – Appellant
Versus
Nagumothu Vani – Respondent


S. S. HUSSAINI, J.

( 1 )

( 2 ) THE petitioner herein who is the sole defendant in the Trial Court questions the legality of the order passed by the Trial Court in LA. No. 769/1996 in O. S. No. 106 of 1990.

( 3 ) IT is submitted that the abovesaid Interlocutory application has been filed under Order 18 Rule 17 C. P. C. for recalling P. W. 1 for the purpose of cross- examination in the interest of justice. The sole ground on which the recalling of P. W. 1 for the purpose of cross-examination is sought, is that when the plaintiff was examined, certain material questions were not asked by the counsel for the petitioner, as the petitioner could not explain the same to his counsel. Order 18 Rule 17 C. P. C. is to the following effect:"the Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) put such questions as the Court thinks fit. "

( 4 ) BY a reading of the above provision, it is apparent that when the Court feels necessity at any stage of the trial to call for the witness already examined, it can put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit. But, in the present situation, it is altogether di




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top