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

2011 Supreme(Mad) 1120

K.VENKATARAMAN
Sundaram Dynacast Pvt. Ltd. , Represented by its Vice-President (Operations) – Appellant
Versus
Raas Controls, Represented by its Partner Anju Khanna – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Srinath Sridevan, Advocate. For the Respondents:V. Ramesh, Advocate.

Judgement Key Points

The case was cited in a judgment that discussed the admissibility of documents and the procedures for filing evidence in civil proceedings, particularly emphasizing the importance of allowing a plaintiff to file documents with the court's leave even if they were not initially filed along with the plaint. The judgment also addressed the procedural aspects related to the recall of witnesses and the filing of documents post evidence closure, highlighting that such procedural relaxations are permissible under certain circumstances.


Judgment :-

1. These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the fair and decreetal order dated 16.02.2010 of the learned Additional District Judge – cum – Fast Track Judge No.2 at Poonamallee made in I.A.Nos.44 of 2010 and 1642 of 2009 in O.S.No.166 of 2004.

2. I.A.No.44 of 2010 was filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.166 of 2004 to recall PW1 for marking further exhibits on his side. I.A.No.1642 of 2009 was filed by the same plaintiff to receive the documents mentioned in the petition. Those applications came to be dismissed by the Court referred to above and the present revisions are directed against the said orders.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the suit was filed against the respondents for recovery of money by the company represented by its Vice-President (Operations). The Company has authorized the said Vice-President by resolution No.228 dated 27.09.2001. The true extract was omitted to be filed by mistake and inadvertence, when he was examined as PW1 and hence an application was taken out to recall PW1 for marking the said document. An application was also taken out to condone the delay in filing the document.

4. However, it is conten





















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