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

2003 Supreme(Mad) 529

P.SHANMUGAM
Subbammal – Appellant
Versus
Paramasivam Asari – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:P.M.Hariharan, Advocate. For the Respondent: ------

Judgment :-

Petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. O.S.NO.457 of 1995 is filed by him for declaration and for permanent injunction restraining the second defendant from interfering with his possession of the suit properties.

2. At the stage of trial, after the examination of plaintiff's side was completed, the defendant wanted to examine himself. The defendant chose to file an affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC(inserted by Act 22 of 2002 with effect from 1.7.2002),by virtue of which, the examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit .

3.The petitioner objecting to the said course filed a petition under Order XVIII Rule 5 CPC to delete the proof affidavit and to direct the chief examination of the defendant to be taken in the Court. The said application was dismissed by the learned District Munsif, Ambasamudram. . The present Revision is filed against the said order.

4.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the amended provision under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC is a general provision providing for the examination-in- chief of the witness on affidavit. It must give way to the special provision viz. Order XVIII Rule 5 CPC providing that evidence of each witness

























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