Partly allowed

B.v.Reddy and Sons v. the Official Assignee

Madras HC26 Jul 2022APPLN/96/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed applications to set aside Masters' orders closing evidence and to recall a witness for cross-examination, accepting reasons related to the COVID-19 pandemic and non-projection of documents.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 16.06.2022 of the learned Master in A.Nos. 191 & 197 of 2016 are set aside; applications A.Nos. 97 & 99 of 2022 to recall P.W.1 are allowed.

B.v.Reddy and Sons Vs the Official Assignee — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

Application (IP) Nos. 96 to 99 of 2022 in I.P.No.25 of 2014

¶3

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. &

¶4

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶5

A.No. 96 of 2022 has been filed by the applicant to set aside the order

¶6

of the learned Master in A.No. 197 of 2016 dated 16.06.2022 and

¶7

consequently reopen the evidence of P.Mangaiyarkkarasi, P.W.1

¶8

2. A.No.97 of 2022 has been filed to recall the witness viz., P.Mangaiyarkkarasi, P.W.1 for cross examination.

¶9

3. A.No. 98 of 2022 has been filed to set aside the order of the learned

¶10

Master in A.No. 191 of 2016 dated 16.06.2022 and consequently, reopen the evidence of P.Mangaiyarkkarasi, P.W.1.

¶11

4. A.No. 99 of 2022 has been filed to recall the witness viz.,

¶12

P.Mangaiyarkkarasi, P.W.1 for cross examination.

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

¶15

5 . The learned counsel for the applicant stated that due to Covid-19

¶16

Pandemic, the applicant had not produced necessary documents and instructed to his counsel, which resulted in the non-representation by his counsel before the learned Master. The learned Master has closed the evidence in both A.Nos. 191 & 197 of 2016 by order dated 16.06.2022. The learned counsel pleaded bonafide and sought to set aside the order dated 16.06.2022.

¶17

6. This Court is satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed

¶18

in support of the application.

¶19

7. Considering the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the applications, A.Nos. 96 & 98 of 2022 are ordered as prayed for and the orders dated 16.06.2022 of the learned Master are set aside.

¶20

8. The reason given by the applicant for non production of the documents in time is also convincing and acceptable. Therefore, A.Nos. 97 & 99 of 2022 to recall the witness viz., P.Mangaiyarkkarasi, P.W.1 for cross examination, are allowed.

¶21

(Dr.G.J.J.,) (C.V.K.J.,) 26.07.2022

¶22

vsg

¶23

Dr.G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

¶26

& C.V.KARTHIKEYAN J,

¶27

vsg

¶28

Application (IP) Nos. 96 to 99 of 2022 in I.P.No.25 of 2014

¶29

26.07.2022

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

B.v.Reddy and Sons v. the Official Assignee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.v.Reddy and Sons v. the Official Assignee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Official Assignee Vs Dr.M.Arumugam and another

Dr.M.Arumugam Vs M/S.International Sea Foods

Vellore Institute of Technology Vs B.v.Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

The Official Assignee Vs Chitra Desai

The Official Assignee Vs Chitra Desai

The Official Assignee Vs S. Arjunlal Sunderdas