Single-judge order allowing civil applications to re-open evidence and re-call a witness after reasonable cause was established for the delay in filing proof affidavits.
Applications allowed; parties directed to agree upon a common proposed schedule for recording evidence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
A.Nos.3943 to 3946 of 2024 in C.S.No.200 of 2006 and C.S.No.965 of 2008
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J
By these applications, C.Kishan Lal, who is the plaintiff in C.S.No.965 of 2008 and the defendant in C.S.No.200 of 2006 seeks to
re-open the evidence and re-call the witness for recording evidence. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that evidence was closed solely on the ground that the defendants did not file the proof affidavit in advance. He also points out that the proof affidavits were
ready on the date fixed for examination of the witness.
to these applications being allowed. By taking into account the facts and circumstances, reasonable cause is established for allowing these applications as prayed for. Hence, all these applications are allowed as prayed for. As a consequence, the parties are directed to
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J
rna
agree upon and submit a common proposed schedule for recording
evidence.
16.08.2024
rna
A.Nos.3943 to 3946 of 2024 in C.S.No.200 of 2006 and C.S.No.965 of 2008
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application to re-open evidence and re-call a witness can be allowed when the proof affidavit was not filed in advance but was ready on the date fixed for examination.
C.Kishan Lal
Respondent
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
