Disposed
Shanmugam v. R.Ezhumalai
Madras HCA/2645/2022
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
A.No.2645 & 2646 of 2022 in O.P.No.344 of…
What the court decided
AI extract
Outcome
¶1
A.No.2645 of 2022
¶2
A.No.2645 & 2646 of 2022 in O.P.No.344 of 2021
¶3
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
¶4
The application in A.No.2645 of 2022 has been filed by the applicant to reopen the petitioner's side evidence made in O.P.No.344 of 2021.
¶5
- The application in A.No.2646 of 2022 has been filed by the applicant
¶6
- to permit him to adduce evidence as attesting witness in O.P.No.344 of 2021.
¶7
- Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that P.W.2 (Arumugam)
¶8
is identifying witness. However, P.W.2 was recorded as attesting witness instead of identifying witness. After recording the evidence of the witnesses, the evidence was closed. Hence, he seeks leave of the Court to re-open and for proper examination of the attesting witness.
¶9
- Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant
¶10
and on being satisfied with the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit,
Coram
AI extract
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court