Dismissed

M.Gunaseelan v. v.Rathinavel

Madras HC20 Dec 2019CRP(MD)/2356/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the trial court's order admitting evidence and completing examinations after the cheque amendment, ruling that leading questions could not arise when evidence is filed via affidavit and dismissing the challenge against the admission of corporate documents.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with no costs; the impugned order is confirmed.

M.Gunaseelan Vs v.Rathinavel — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2356 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Date : 20.12.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2356 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD)No.12459 of 2019

¶7

M.Gunaseelan

¶8

Vs.

¶9

V.Rathinavel .. Respondent

¶10

Prayer : This Civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 25.09.2019 made in I.A.No.747 of 2017 in O.S.No.533 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Karur.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Devaraj

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶14

2.This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed in I.A.No.747 of 2017 in O.S.No.533 of 2015 dated 25.09.2019, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Karur.

¶15

3.On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that leading questions were asked in the chief examination of D.W.1 and the same is against Section 144 of the Indian Evidence Act. The document, Ex.B6 receipt was marked. The alleged receipt is said to have been given by one M/s.Sri Vinayaka Enterprises, whereas the plaintiff is not a partner in the firm. The petition to strike off evidence of D.W.2 was dismissed by the trial Court. Against which, the petitioner preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

¶16

4.It is seen that after the amendment in the year 2002, the chief examination can be by way of filing an affidavit.

¶17

5.In the above circumstances, the question of asking leading questions will not arise. If the petitioner is having grievance over the marking of the documents, he can object the same before the trial Court at the time of trial or he can adduce rebuttal evidence against that document before the trial Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

1 / 2

¶19

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2356 of 2019

¶20

6.In the above circumstances, there is no reason sufficient enough to interfere in the orders passed by the trial Court. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the order passed in I.A.No.747 of 2017 in O.S.No.533 of 2015 dated 25.09.2019, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Karur is confirmed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar (Records)

// True Copy //

MRN

The Principal Subordinate Jude, Karur.

¶27

+1 CC to Mr.R.DEVARAJ, Advocate ( SR-106296[F] dated 20/12/2019 )

¶28

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2356 of 2019 20.12.2019

¶29

VB(27.01.2020) 2P 3C

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

2 / 2

M.Gunaseelan v. v.Rathinavel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Gunaseelan v. v.Rathinavel

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

Fathima Gani Vs Hasarath Sayad Shaw Mian

P.K.Abdul Kader Vs P.a.Jannath Ganni

Malathi Vs the Managing Director

The Managing Director Vs D.Ponraj

J.Gabrilla, D/O. John, Vs Amaladoss, S/O. Durairaj

S.Selvakumar Vs v.Arulpandi