Rukku v. K.Sivagnanam
Case brief
What is this about?
This judgment allowed the petitioners' civil revisions to set aside and dismiss the lower court's order granting applications to reopen the trial and mark an antecedent deposition via adverse inference, reasoning that the deposition is inadmissible as the deponent is alive.
What did the court decide?
Applications I.A.Nos.169 to 171 of 2015 under Section 151 CPC are dismissed; Civil Revision Petitions allowed.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.01.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.955 to 957 of 2015
& M.P.No.1 of 2015
1.Rukku
2.Nasiyammal .. Petitioners in all
C.R.Ps.
Vs.
1.K.Sivagnanam
2.Kali
3.Dillirajan
4.Lakshmi
5.Kulandi
6.Alamelu .. Respondents in all
C.R.Ps.
COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal orders dated 07.02.2015 made in I.A.Nos.169 to 171 of 2015 in O.S.No.387 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Thirupattur, Vellore District.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.M.Hariharan For R1 : Mr.S.Subbiah, Senior Counsel For R2 to R6 : Exparte
2
C O M M O N O R D E R
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an admission made by a deponent in an earlier suit can be marked as evidence in the present suit when the deponent is alive and remaining ex parte.
Whether the High Court is empowered to overturn the lower court's order allowing applications to reopen the case and mark evidence via adverse inference.
Whether the order allowing the applications to reopen the case and recall deposition under Section 151 CPC should be set aside.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Rukku
- petitioner
Nasiyammal
- respondent
K.Sivagnanam
- respondent
Kali
- respondent
Dillirajan
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court