Disposed

B.Geetha v. a.Annamalai

Madras HC16 Jun 2016CRP/1295/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A revival petition under Article 226 was filed against an order condoning delay in producing documents. The High Court directed the lower court to receive the documents, mark them subject to admissibility, and decide relevance and proof during final adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Directed the lower court to receive documents, mark them in court, and decide admissibility, relevance, and proof in the final judgment.

B.Geetha Vs a.Annamalai — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16.06.2016

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶6

Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.1295 of 2016 and

¶7

C.M.P.No.7245 of 2016

¶8

1.B.Geetha

¶9

W/o.Baskar

¶10

2.S.Baskar S/o.Subbu Naidu

¶11

... Petitioners

¶12

¶13

1.A.Annamalai S/o.Ayyadurai

¶14

2.V.Vijayalakshmi W/o.Venkatesan

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of learned Additional District Munsif, Villupuram District, passed in I.A.No.1175 of 2015 in O.S.No.83 of 2009 on 15.02.2016.

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Saseetharan

O R D E R

This revision arises against the order of learned Additional District

¶22

Munsif, Villupuram District, passed in I.A.No.1175 of 2015 in O.S.No.83 of 2009 on 15.02.2016.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for petitioners.

¶24

By way of order in the interim application, the Court below has condoned the delay in the first respondent/plaintiff producing documents on

¶25

the reasoning that copies of such documents had been filed by the first respondent/plaintiff when the original plaint was returned requiring him to effect compliance with Or.7 R.11 CPC. In receiving the documents, the Court below rightly has found that it would be improper to disallow production of documents before it. It has also taken note of the position that the admissibility or otherwise of the documents so produced would always be subject to the order of the Court. As learned counsel for petitioners takes umbrage to the order of the Court below to the effect that it would be appropriate to accept the documents produced 'in evidence', this Court would dispose of this revision with the observation that the Court below shall receive the documents produced and may proceed to mark the same subject to admissibility,

¶26

¶27

relevance and proof, which issues may be gone into in the final adjudication of the case.

¶28

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No

¶29

costs.

¶30

16.06.2016

¶31

Index:yes/no Internet:yes gm

¶32

¶33

The Additional District Munsif, Villupuram District.

C.T.SELVAM, J

Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.1295 of 2016

¶38

16.06.2016

B.Geetha v. a.Annamalai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Geetha v. a.Annamalai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Sellappan Vs R.D. Rajendra Nayudu

R.Saranya Vs G.Ranjith Gowdhaman

B.Suganya Vs Dhanalakshmi

Jeralin Irudaya Mary Vs Joseph Irudaya Raja

Mrs. Deivakumari Vs Mr. Chandrasekar

The Managing Director Vs Gopalakrishnan