Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
B.M.Purnachandran – Appellant
Versus
M.Nithiyanandham – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision sought to set aside dismissal (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defence omitted due to lack of communication (Para 3) |
| 3. trial not substantially commenced; opportunity granted (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. civil revision petition is allowed (Para 6) |
ORDER
The Revision Petitioners have filed this petition to set aside the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 pertaining to the IA No. 3 of 2024 filed in OS No. 516 of 2016 pending on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Poonmallee.
2. Before the commencement of the cross-examination of PW1, the defendants found it necessary to file an additional written statement by raising certain additional defences. Accordingly, he filed an application before the trial Court in IA No. 3 of 2024 in OS No. 516 of 2016, but the same was dismissed by the learned trial Judge on the ground that after commencement of the trial, the defendants sought to introduce contradictory pleadings, which is not permissible under law. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that PW1 has not yet been cross-examined and that, during the course of trial proceedings, the defendants realized that cer
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
