Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J
C.Anitha Valarmathy – Appellant
Versus
The Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Company – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of suit and incomplete cross-examination. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. consideration of parties' submissions. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. importance of cross-examination and upholding discretion. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. modification of costs and directions for trial. (Para 10 , 11) |
COMMON O R D E R
Heard Ms.C.Anitha Valarmathy (Party-in-person) and Ms.Dhanya for Anath C.Rajesh appearing for Respondent.
2. These two revisions impugn the common order passed by the learned District Munsif, Nanguneri in allowing the applications filed to reopen and recall P.W.1 for the purpose of cross examination.
3. The plaintiff is the Civil Revision Petitioner and the respondent is the defendant.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank in the suit.
5. O.S. No. 25 of 2019 was filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of permanent injunction. A written statement was filed. With the pleadings completed, issues were framed, and the parties were sent for trial. The plaintiff, as P.W.1, entered the witness box. The matter was adjourned repeatedly for cross examination from 12.06.2024 to 13.11.2024. Apart from sporadic cross-examination, the evidence was not complet
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
