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

2001 Supreme(Mad) 389

P.SATHASIVAM
D. Sarasu – Appellant
Versus
Jayalakshmi – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. S.K. Raghunathan, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Venkateswaran for Mrs. Hema Sampath for Respondents.

Judgment :

1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 191 of 1997 on the file of Principle Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore is the petitioner in the above revision. She has filed the said suit for declaration of her title and injunction in respect of suit properties and in the alternative partition and separate possession of her share.

2. Thesecond defendant has filed a written statement disputing various averments made by the plaintiff. In the trial, during the examination of P.W.6 on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff wanted to mark xerox copy of partition list dated 14.07.1992. The said action was objected by the counsel for the defendants stating that marking of the same xerox copy which was objected when P.W.1 was examined and the said objection was sustained. Now again marking of the same document cannot be allowed and the xerox copy is not admissible. Accepting the objection raised by the defendants, the learned Principle Subordinate Judge, after holding that xerox copy cannot be marked and the claim of the plaintiff marking xerox copy of the document has been rejected, against which the plaintiff has filed the present revision.

3. Pursuant to the "Notice of Motion" ordered by this Court





























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