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

2010 Supreme(Mad) 926

M.JEYAPAUL
Kaliya Perumal – Appellant
Versus
Dhandapani – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:P. Mathivanan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R. Gururaj, Advocate.

Judgment :-

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the application filed by the plaintiff to recall the documents marked as Exs.B1 to B3 and B11 from the evidence of DW1 and PW1, the present civil revision petition is filed by the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of title and for consequential injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his enjoyment of the property. During the course of cross-examination of PW1, an unregistered and unstamped release deed dated 13. 1999 was marked on behalf of the defendant through the plaintiff. Exs.B2, B3 and B11, which were only xerox copies, were also marked. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a petition praying to recall the documents marked as Exs.B1 to B3 and B11 from the evidence of DW1 and PW1. It has also been contended by the plaintiff that even before the petition filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendant to receive those documents was disposed of by the Trial Court, those documents were exhibited and marked.

3. The defendant resisted the petition on the ground that the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure was

























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