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

2006 Supreme(Mad) 3035

P.SATHASIVAM
Krishnaveni & Others – Appellant
Versus
Gopal Pandithar – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:For the Petitioners:T.S. Sivagnanam, Advocate. For the Respondent:V. Lakshminarayanan, Advocate.

Judgment :-

(Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 07.02.2006 made in I.A.Nos.62 and 63 of 2006 respectively in O.S.No.116 of 2001 on the file of Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Chengam.)

Common Order:

The defendants in O.S.No.116 of 2001 on the file of Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Chengam are the revision petitioners. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed the said suit for declaration and delivery of possession of the suit property. The defendants filed a written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiff. After examination of D.W.1 on the side of the defendants, the plaintiff has filed two applications, one to recall D.W.1 and another to reopen the evidence on the side of defendants. In the affidavits filed in support of the above petitions, it is stated that the suit is in part-heard stage and the evidence on the side of defendants was closed and DWs.1 and 2 were examined and the suit was posted for plaintiff’s side evidence. It is further stated that the counsel on record omitted to put some vital questions to DW.1; hence, it is just and necessary to reopen the evidence on th





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