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

2022 Supreme(Mad) 1796

R. VIJAYAKUMAR
T. Perumalsamy – Appellant
Versus
Padmavathi – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:P. Santhoshkumar, Advocate. For the Respondents:S. Parthasarathy, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Case is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the fair and final order dated 07.08.2017 made in I.A.No. 687 of 2017 in O.S.No.182 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar.)

The plaintiff is the revision petitioner.

2. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction for two items of the suit schedule properties. Pending suit, the plaintiff had filed a list of witnesses as contemplated under Order 16 Rule 1 of C.P.C to be examined on his side.

3. The defendants filed I.A.No.535 of 2017 to reject the said list filed by the plaintiff on the ground that the proposed witnesses are no way connected with the dispute raised in the suit. After hearing both parties, the trial Judge allowed the said application on the ground that the plaintiff has not assigned any proper reason for examining each one of the witnesses. However, the plaintiff was granted liberty to file a fresh application explaining the reason for examination of each one the witnesses.

4. Pursuant to the said order, plaintiff filed I.A.No.687 of 2017 explaining certain reasons for examination of around 9 witnesses. The said ap

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