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

2000 Supreme(Kar) 689

T.N.VALLINAYAGAM
G. Thippeswamy – Appellant
Versus
Thippeswamy – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. K.R. Ramesh, for the Appellant.
Mr. R. Pushpahasa, for the Respondent.

ORDER

T.N. Vallinayagam, J.—The dismissal of I.A. No. 12 for summoning the Secretary of T.N. Kote Gram Panchayat and permitting the Plaintiff to examine him was dismissed by the Trial Court holding that there are materials on records and that the Secretary did not have documents with him. It is this order that is being challenged.

2. Heard both the Counsel.

3. Normally in trial any party should be allowed to conduct the trial in the way he chooses by examining his witnesses, by summoning the documents before the authorities and if necessary send the documents for expert's opinion either directly or under Order 26, Rule 10A. This proceeding cannot be stopped in mid way and for every now and then the High Court cannot be disturbed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. If that be the case, no trial would be completed and for every small incident the party should go in revision. The word "case decided" which occur in Section 115 has not been properly appreciated. Summoning the documents can never be the case decided. Anyhow, against that no Civil Revision Petition will lie normally. But when the trial Court refuses to exercise the jurisdiction and permit the Plaintiff to conduct t



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