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

1978 Supreme(Mad) 377

S.MAINAR SUNDARAM
Lakshman and others – Appellant
Versus
Ellammal and others – Respondent


Advocates:
E. Padmanabhan, for Petitioners.

Order.-The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 347 of 1973 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore are the petitioners in this revision. The respondents herein are defendants in the said suit. The plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 2379 of 1976 under Order 26, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code to appoint a Commissioner to take the evidence of the 1st plaintiff. The reasons advanced by the plaintiffs for the necessity to examine the 1st plaintiff by Commission were that he was aged about 76 years and on account of sickness and infirmity he was unable to attend Court. The plaintiffs also filed a certificate obtained from a registered medical practitioner, dated 21st January, 1977. The said application was dismissed by the Court below and the present revision is directed against the order of the Court below.

2. Mr. E. Padmanabhan, the learned counsel for the petitioners urged that there has been a lack of exercise of judicial discretion by the Court below and the principles underlying Order 26, rule 1 as recognised and laid down by this Court have not been kept in mind by the Court below while disposing of the application in question. The medical certificate referred to above reads as follows:

“I, Dr. G.











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