Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. Suresh Reddy, J
Syed Reshma, W/o. Naveen Bharath Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Nemana Gurunadha Subramanyam, S/o. Late N. Siva Prasad Rao – Respondent
ORDER :
By this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-defendant has prayed for setting aside the order dated 31-12-2024 in I.A.No. 483 of 2024 in O.S.No. 24 of 2019 on the file of the Court of learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati (for short, 'the trial Court').
2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, who are plaintiffs, filed a suit in O.S.No. 24 of 2019 before the trial Court against the petitioner herein, who is defendant, seeking to declare that they are the absolute owners of plaint schedule property and to direct the petitioner-defendant to vacate plaint schedule property and handover possession of the same and for other reliefs. The petitioner-defendant is contesting the suit by filing a written statement. In the aforesaid proceeding, based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed issues and examined respondent No. 1 herein-plaintiff No. 1 as P.W.1 on 02-09-2024 and the cross-examination of P.W.1 has been deferred. Subsequently, the suit is being adjourned from time to time for cross-examination of P.W.1. While the suit stands thus, respondent Nos. 1 and 2-plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 filed I.A.No. 483 of 2024 under Order XXVI Rul
The court upheld the trial Court's discretion to appoint an advocate commissioner for recording evidence when a witness is unable to attend due to medical conditions, emphasizing justice over procedu....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to set aside a trial court's decision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when it finds a palpable error in the re....
The court has discretion to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to take evidence from a defendant unable to attend court due to health reasons, emphasizing the protection of fundamental rights.
The court affirmed the necessity to consider a defendant's health and age in granting commissions for evidence gathering, reinforcing the right to a fair trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC cannot be used to fill up the omission in the evidence already let by a witness, and there is no ....
The power to issue a commission for recording evidence is discretionary and should be exercised cautiously and sparingly, especially when the party to the litigation claims to be examined by a commis....
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....
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
