Back
B. S. BHANUMATHI
Paila Regarao – Appellant
Versus
Pragada Rama Rao – Respondent
ORDER :
This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the unsuccessful defendant feeling aggrieved by order, dated 16.10.2019, passed in I.A.No.217 of 2019 in O.S.No.214 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle.
2. Heard Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/defendant and Sri Ghantasala Udaya Bhaskar, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and defendant for convenience and clarity.
3. The facts that lead to filing of this revision by the revision petitioner/defendant, in brief, are as follows:
The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.214 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle, for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,15,400/- and subsequent interest thereon basing on a promissory note, dated 30.12.2013. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement and specifically pleading that the suit promissory note is fabricated. While so, the plaintiff, after adducing his evidence as PW1, filed the chief affidavit of PW2 who is one of the attestors of exhibit A
A witness can be permitted to state on oath about an error crept in the affidavit already filed and allow him to make his own statement about the said fact, and proceed thereafter for cross-examinati....
A party must submit properly executed affidavits to reopen cases; irregularities can lead to setting aside of trial court orders.
The court emphasized the need to give the defendant an opportunity to lead evidence despite her absence on one occasion and held that eschewing the evidence already concluded while allowing further e....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that procedural lapses and non-compliance with the provisions of CPC may not warrant exclusion of evidence if the party is not prejudiced, and the ....
The main legal point established is that the procedural rules governing witness examination, specifically Order XVIII Rule 4 C.P.C. and Sections 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, do not p....
The court affirmed that defendants with a common defense can provide evidence sequentially without violating procedural rules, emphasizing the quality of evidence over quantity.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
