Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.Thamilselvi, J
Mohammed Aslam – Appellant
Versus
Asra Mohammed Ashik – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of civil revision petition under article 227 (Para 1) |
| 2. trial court applications under order xviii rule 17 cpc for reopening and recall (Para 2) |
| 3. petitioner's contention regarding inadequate opportunity for cross-examination (Para 3) |
| 4. respondent's contention in support of trial court's order (Para 4) |
| 5. court's allowing revision petitions based on procedural fairness (Para 5) |
COMMON ORDER
Challenging the impugned common order passed in I.A.Nos.5 and 6 of
2025 in C.O.S.No.62 of 20243 by the learned Principal Commercial Courts, Egmore, Chennai, the Revision Petitioner/defendant had preferred these Civil Revision Petitions.
2.Before the trial court, the revision petitioner/defendant filed the applications under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Sec.151 of C.P.C. seeking to reopen the evidence of P.W.1 and to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination. On hearing both sides, the said applications were dismissed by the trial judge holding that already sufficient opportunity was given to him cross-examine P.W.1 and detailed cross-examination was also made. Therefore, the subsequent reopening of the case would not arise. Furthermore, the scope of constitution of Commer
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
