HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
Kallettumkara Service Co-operative Bank – Appellant
Versus
CKL Nidhi Limited – Respondent
COMMON JUDGMENT
In these original petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who had filed claim petitions, impugns separate orders passed in I.A.No.5 of 2022 in O.S.No.287 of 2018 dated 31.01.2022, I.A.No.6 of 2022 in O.S.No.353 of 2018 and I.A.No.6 of 2022 in O.S.No.354 of 2018 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the first respondent/the plaintiff in the suit. No representation for respondents 2 and 3, though notice served on them.
3. Going by the orders impugned, it appears that respective petitions filed by the petitioner in the claim petition seeking permission to put leading questions to the witnesses shown in the list, was allowed by the learned Munsiff by a non-speaking order. The orders impugned in all these petitions is as under;
“No counter. Heard. Allowed.”
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the court below went wrong in passing such an order, since putting leading questions directly to a witness is not permissible in the eye of law when there is objection by the other side and the procedure for the same is different.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.