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

2022 Supreme(AP) 1031

B. S. BHANUMATHI
D. Malini – Appellant
Versus
T. Damodaram – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mahadeva Kanthrigala, Advocate, for the Appellant; Chetluru Sreenivas, Adv., for the Respondents

JUDGMENT

B.S. Bhanumathi, J. - This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the orders, dated 26.03.2021, passed in I.A. No. 173 of 2021 in O.S. No. 204 of 2015 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.

2(a). The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of an alleged fabricated pronote and the plaintiff himself was examined as PW1. On the side of the defendants, DWs. 1 to 3 were examined and certain documents were marked. During the course of trial, while examining PW1, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has not put some of the relevant questions with regard to the execution of the pronote and the signature on it. Hence, the present application has been filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC seeking to recall PW1 for the purpose of further cross-examination.

2(b). The respondent/plaintiff filed counter denying the petition averments and contending that the chief affidavit of the plaintiff was filed on 05.09.2018. The counsel for the defendant, by name Sri P.V.S. Naveen Prasad, cross-examined the plaintiff on 09.07.2019. Another cou

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