Baggyam v. M.Mangai
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court allowed civil revisions against Principal District Judge Krishnagiri. Set aside order reopening case to admit old documents and recall witness. Directed retrial within three months to avoid delay.
What did the court decide?
Civil Revision Petitions allowed; order of Trial Court setting aside; suit remanded for disposal within three months on day to day basis.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.02.2017
CORAM :
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN
Civil Revision Petition (PD) Nos.2993 to 2995 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
1.Baggyam
2.Pasupathy
3.Vanaja
4.S.Devi
5.Kariyan .. Petitioners
Vs.
1.M.Mangai
2.M.Tamilselvan .. Respondents
Revisions filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 17.4.2013 made in I.A.Nos.70, 71 & 83 of 2013 in O.S.No.55 of 2012 on the file of Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Nicholas
For Respondents : M/s.N.Sureka
COMMON ORDER
These revisions are directed against the order dated 17.04.2013 made in I.A.Nos.70, 71 and 83 of 2013 in O.S.No.55 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Court, Krishnagiri. The petitioners are the
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in reopening the case of plaintiffs to admit evidence and recall a witness after completion of trial and commencement of arguments.
Whether evidence sought to be admitted under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC was permissible given the absence of convincing reasons for non-production during the trial.
Whether the trial court's order allowing the reopening of the case was perverse and liable to be set aside under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Baggyam, Pasupathy, Vanaja, S. Devi, Kariyan
- respondent
M. Mangai, M. Tamilselvan
Coram
M.V. Muralidaran
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court