Back
T. V. THAMILSELVI
K. R. Ramanujam (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Sri Narasus Coffee Company Private Ltd, Rep by its Managing Director, Salem. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and final order dated 16.03.2023, In I.A.No.12 of 2023 in O.S.No.193 of 2013 passed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem and allow the Civil Revision Petition.)
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to set aside the fair and final order dated 16.03.2023 made in I.A.No.12 of 2023 in O.S.No.193 of 2013 passed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem.
2. The petitioners filed in I.A.No.12 of 2023 under Order 16 Rule 1 & 151 of CPC., for issue of summons to the witness to examine as Dw3. The petitioners stated that they have proposed to examine one B.Jayashree, who is one of the executants of Ex.A-33 as she also participated in the mediation and the said application was strongly objected by the plaintiff/1st respondent herein stating that Ex.A-33, already admitted by both parties in the suit, therefore filing of the application in I.A.No.12 of 2023 by the petitioners is only to drag on the proceedings.
3. Considering the both submissions, the trial Court had dismissed the application holding th
The court emphasized the importance of completing the evidence within a specified period and allowing the examination of witnesses to ensure a fair trial.
The main legal point established is that the trial court should not extend the date for examination of witnesses beyond a reasonable period of time.
The power to summon a witness as a court witness under Order XVI Rule 14 of CPC should be exercised by the court based on its satisfaction, and the dismissal of a petition would not cause any serious....
The admissibility of evidence is based on the relevance to the facts in issue or the relevant facts, as per the Indian Evidence Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that interlocutory applications seeking to reopen evidence, give further evidence, and mark additional documents must be supported by genuine reaso....
The power to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 is intended to clarify any issue or doubt, not for further examination or to place additional evidence. The power should be used sparingly and not....
The main legal point established is that the procedural rules governing witness examination, specifically Order XVIII Rule 4 C.P.C. and Sections 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, do not p....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
