Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J
UMMER HAJI – Appellant
Versus
SUHRA VALLANCHIRA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's improper dismissal of evidence due to witnesses' absence. (Para 1) |
| 2. submission of counsel on proper procedures under cpc. (Para 2) |
| 3. court's affirmation of procedural necessity in evidence gathering. (Para 3) |
| 4. order for the lower court to ensure witness attendance. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The original petition has been filed by the plaintiff, being aggrieved by the procedure followed by the court below in closing the plaintiff’s evidence for the sole reason that witnesses 1 and 2, who were issued with non-bailable warrants, did not turn up to give evidence.
2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that, in such circumstances, the court ought to have followed the procedure laid down in Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure before closing the evidence on the side of the plaintiff. of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), deals with the penalty for default if a person who has been duly summoned does not appear. The counsel also relies on the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in Smt. Uchhabkanwar & Anr. vs Legal Representatives of Ramswaroop & Ors, (1995 KHC 2414), wherein the court was considering a similar circumstance in which the persons who were
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
