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

1966 Supreme(AP) 281

P.JAGMOHAN REDDY, ANANTA NARAYANA AYYAR
Khaja Begum – Appellant
Versus
Abdul Hameed – Respondent


JAGANMHAN REDDY, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is against an order of the second Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, in which he directed witnesses D. Ws. 1 to 4 to be summoned afresh and their evidence recorded, inasmuch as their previous depositions were inadvertently not signed by the Judge who recorded them before he was reverted as Subordinate judge for want of vacancy. It may be stated that arguments in the case had been completed and several months thereafter, the respondent s advocate appears to have filed an application to say that as parts of the depositions of D. Ws. 1 to 4 were not signed, they were inadmissible in evidence. This argument seems to have been found favour with the learned Second Additional Chief Judge. We may state that the evidence of D. Ws. 1 to 3 was typewritten while D. W. 4 s evidence was taken down completely by hand. It may also be stated that the examination-in-Chief recorded on the first day of D. W. 1 was alone signed and the rest of the deposition was not signed. Each one of D. Ws. 1 to 4 signed their respective depositions and there seems to be no controversy or objection raised by either the witnesses or the parties or the Advocate




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