Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. A. BADHARUDEEN, J
ALICE – Appellant
Versus
MOLY – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to orders in ongoing case (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. dispute regarding evidence admission (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 3. analysis of secondary evidence rules (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. clarification on document proof standards (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 14) |
| 5. original petition dismissed (Para 17) |
| 6. final decision on original petition (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
'CR'
COMMON JUDGMENT
Orders in I.A.Nos.9/2020, 11/2020 and 12/2020 in O.S.No.568/2013 pending before the Principal Sub Judge, Thrissur are under challenge in O.P.(C) No.173/2022 filed by the plaintiff in the above suit.
2. Orders passed on the same day in I.A.Nos.10/2020 and 13/2020 in the same suit are under challenge in O.P.(C) No.174/2022 filed by the plaintiff.
3. The crux of the dispute in O.P.(C) No.173/2022 is that while cross-examining PW3, the brother of the parties in this case, a photo copy of an alleged agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondent got marked as Ext.B1, when PW3 admitted, when confronted the same.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.B1 was marked in evidence, despite strong objection raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Copy of the deposition of PW3
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
