Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B.S. BHANUMATHI
Kote Krishnudu – Appellant
Versus
Mandleam Subba Reddy – Respondent
ORDER :
B.S. BHANUMATHI, J.
This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the order, dated 17.05.2024, dismissing I.A.No.800 of 2023 in O.S.No.62 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC to reject the chief affidavit of 1st defendant (DW2).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The suit was filed for permanent injunction and the suit was opposed by the defendants by filing a written statement. During the course of trial, the 3rd defendant was first examined as DW1 and in his evidence in chief examination, he stated that he is deposing for him and also for the other two defendants 1 & 2. Later, the 1st defendant proposed to give evidence as DW2 and filed affidavit in evidence in chief examination stating that he is giving evidence on his behalf and also on behalf of the other defendants 2 & 3. As such, the plaintiff filed petition in I.A.No.800 of 2023 under Section 151 CPC to reject the affidavit of the 1st defendant/DW2 on the ground that the 1st defendant cannot again give evidence on his behalf and on behalf of DW1/defendant No.3 and such a course is unknown to law
The court affirmed that defendants with a common defense can provide evidence sequentially without violating procedural rules, emphasizing the quality of evidence over quantity.
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 plaintiff-respondent has the right to lead evidence in affirmative on issues the onus of which was cast upon her.
The plaintiff cannot lead evidence in rebuttal as a matter of right on an issue the onus of which is on the defendant-respondent, and must reserve the right to do so.
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 fundamental principle of law of evidence that a witness proposed to be examined should not be present in the Court during the cross-examination of another witness, and the trial court's obligatio....
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
