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

1969 Supreme(Ker) 280

V.R.A.KRISHNA IYER
Manual T Paikaday – Appellant
Versus
Kerala State – Respondent


JUDGMENT

V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.

1. It is contended, and rightly, that Government is not a favoured litigant in Court. I should add that Government cannot get away with it by being an indifferent litigant either. These comments have been provoked by the failure of the Government, as defendant in O.S. No. 114 of 1965, to produce a certified copy of what is called the Middle Income Group Housing Scheme at the appropriate stage in the Trial Court, with the result that at the time of the arguments before the learned Munsiff an alleged copy of the said scheme was placed in his hands, was looked into and acted upon by him and the appellate Court was forced to set aside that decree for the reason that "as the copy placed for perusal is not proved in the case that cannot be acted upon and the lower Court was wrong in deciding the case without proper proof of that record." However, the appellate Court felt "that the State should be given a chance either to prove that record formally or to show to the Court that the same was published in the Government Gazette, in which case the Court could take judicial notice of it." A remand was ordered and the C.M. appellant challenges that order before me.











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