In A.No.8094 of 2017, the Madras High Court disposed of an interim application seeking permission to summon a defendant's witness. The court dismissed the application as the plea regarding the witness was not in the written statement.
The application to summon R.G.Udhayakumar as defendant's witness was dismissed.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN A.No.8094 of 2017 in C.S.No.364 of 2012
Mr.B.Shantilal Choudhary, S/o.Mr.Bhairon Singh Choudhary, residing at Old No.39, New No.21, General Muthiah Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai- 600 079 ..Plaintiff Vs Mrs.D.Geetha, W/o.Mr.Somesehara Reddy, No.3/5, Ramachandra Road, T.Nagar, Chennai- 600 017 ...defendant
A.No.8094 OF 2017: Mrs.D.Geetha W/o.Somasehara Reddy, No.3/5, Ramachandra Road, T.Nagar, Chennai- 600 017 (Presently Residing at 19/1 & 8, Crescent Park Street, II Floor, T.Nagar, Chennai- 600017) ..Applicant vs B.Shantilal Chowdry, S/o.Bhairon Singh Choudhary, 39/21, Genearl Muthiah Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai- 600079 ..Respondent Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to permit the defendant to summon R.G.Udhayakumar, Son of A.C.Rajadass, aged 54 years, residing at No.15, Rathinapuri, Koyambedu, Chennai- 600107, as a defendant side witness (D.W.2) to depose regarding the fact that he introduced the defendant to the plaintiff to get loan on
2
mortgaging the suit property and other related facts of the transaction in the above suit C.S.No.364 of 2012.
This application coming on this day before this court for hearing the court made the following order:
This application has been taken out to examine and
issue summons to one R.G.Udhayakumar to examine as D.W-2 claiming that he was introduced by the defendant to the plaintiff to enable the plaintiff to get loan n mortgaging the suit property. Such a plea is absent in the written statement. Hence, I see no reason to permit the defendant to summon the said R.G.Udhayakumar for deposing as DW-2. Hence, this application is dismissed.
Registry is directed to post the suit before the learned Additional Master-III for continuation of evidence on 07.12.2017.
//Certified to be a true copy//
Dated this the day of 2017.
DL/06.12.2017 COURT OFFICER
From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant was entitled to summon a new witness (D.W.-2) whose plea was absent in the written statement.
Mrs. D. Geetha
B. Shantilal Chowdry
R. Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
