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

2013 Supreme(Mad) 891

M.VENUGOPAL
A. K. Damodaran – Appellant
Versus
Geetha – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioner: Ms.M.Rebecca for M/s.K.Balakrishnan
For Respondent: Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy

ORDER

1.The Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff as against the Order dated 12.11.2010 in I.A.No.464 of 2010 in O.S.No.59 of 2008 passed by the Learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam.

2.The Learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, while passing orders in I.A.NO.464 of 2010 in O.S.No.59 of 2008, dated 12.11.2010, has in Para-6 categorically observed that 'already on behalf of the Petitioner/Plaintiff, PW1 has been examined and further, on behalf of the Respondent/Defendant, he has been cross examined and after completion of his evidence, to fill up what has been omitted by the Plaintiff in his evidence, in order to fill up the same, the present petition has been filed and after examination of a witness and also after completion of the cross examination of the witness and when the case has been adjourned for production of the other witnesses to be examined and at that point of time, when a petition is filed to re-examine the said witness with a request to mark documents, the same cannot be permitted as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (d) Through Lrs. v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate 2009-



















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