Single common order dismissing civil revision petitions filed under Article 226 challenging orders recalling a witness and admitting documents. The Court held the belated stage was not a bar and explained admissibility of depositions for contradiction/corroberation.
Civil revision petitions dismissed; pending miscellaneous applications closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI
C.R.P. Nos.6546 and 6559 of 2018
COMMON ORDER:
These civil revision petitions are filed by the petitionerplaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the separate orders dated 12.10.2018, allowing I.A.No.556 of 2018 (CRP No.6546 of 2018) and I.A.No.557 of 2018 (CRP No.6559 of 2018) filed by the respondents-defendants in O.S.No.72 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati. I.A.No.556 of 2018 is filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to recall D.W.1 to adduce further evidence. I.A.No.557 of 2018 is filed under Order VIII Rules 1A and 3 and Section 151 CPC, to receive the documents detailed in the affidavit and mark the same as exhibits.
2
contention, on the face of it, cannot be dismissed. It is possible that they might not have traced out the documents earlier.
___________________ SMT T. RAJANI, J August 07, 2019 YS
1 MANU/AP/2796/2014 = Crl.R.C.Nos.1404, 1407 and 1408 of 2014, dated 23.7.2014.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court should allow the recall of a witness and receipt of documents filed at a belated stage in a civil revision petition.
Whether the previous deposition of a living witness is admissible under Section 157 and Section 145 of the Evidence Act for corroboration or contradiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.Kusuma Kumari vs. State of Andhra PradeshExplained¶10
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Justice T. Rajani
Respondents-Defendants
T. RAJANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
