Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr.P.B.Balaji, J
Fibox India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Geesys Technologies (India) Private Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the revision petitions arise from a common order concerning evidentiary documents. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding the introduction of late documents. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. court observations underline the importance of procedural compliance. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. the court's determination to strictly apply evidentiary rules in commercial cases. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. the final judgment nullifies the prior order and emphasizes procedural integrity. (Para 19 , 20) |
COMMON ORDER
These revision petitions are at the instance of the plaintiff in C.O.S. No.738 of 2022, aggrieved by the common order dated 13.06.2025 in I.A. Nos.5, 6 and 7 of 2025.
2. I have heard Ms.Deepika Murali, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and Mr.T.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Deepika Murali would contend that the suit was filed in the year 2021 and after two years, in 2023, the plaintiff’s evidence was over and the suit was posted for defendant’s evidence. She would further stated that even as early as in August 2024, D.W.1 has examined and cross examined by the learned counsel for the
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
