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

2019 Supreme(AP) 390

M. SEETHARAMA MURTI
YETRINATHALA SUBBULU NAIDU – Appellant
Versus
ALA NIRMALA – Respondent


Table of Content
1. basis for reopening evidence and cross-examination. (Para 1 , 3)
2. arguments regarding contradictory witness testimonies. (Para 2 , 4 , 6 , 7)
3. court's analytical observations on witness recall. (Para 5 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. conditions for exercising the power to recall witnesses. (Para 11)
5. final decision to allow reopening of evidence. (Para 12 , 13)

ORDER :

M.Seetharama Murti, J.

These two revision petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are filed by the unsuccessful petitioners – plaintiffs, having been aggrieved of the common order, dated 06.06.2019, of the learned III Additional District Judge, Guntur, passed in IA.nos. 439 & 438 of 2019 in OS.no.62 of 2007 respectively filed for reopening of the evidence of the defendants and recall of DW1 for further cross examination after confronting to her, her deposition in OS.no.26 of 2009 on the file of Senior Civil Court, Kavali.

2. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners -plaintiffs [‘plaintiffs’, for brevity]; and, of the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent – 1st defendant [‘1st defendant’, for brevity]. Respondents 2 to 7 are stated to be not

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