Prakash v. Subramanian
Case brief
What is this about?
In a civil revision, the Court set aside an order rejecting a memo for the 9th defendant to depose as the power agent of the absent 2nd defendant. The Court allowed the simultaneous deposition and fixed a schedule for the trial's disposal to end pendency.
What did the court decide?
The rejecting order was set aside; the memo allowing the 9th defendant to examine as the power agent was allowed with a schedule for trial conclusion.
What the court decided
C.R.P.No.4903 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.12.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.4903 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.27510 of 2024
Prakash
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Subramanian
2.Subbulakshmi
3.Selvaraj
4.Ragupal
5.Thirumalaisamy
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a party appointed as a power agent by a litigant is debarred from recording oral evidence after having testified in their own capacity.
Whether the High Court can impose a timeline for disposal of civil litigation causing prolonged pendency due to ex parte orders.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Prakash
- respondent
Subramanian
- respondent
Subbulakshmi
- respondent
Selvaraj
- respondent
Ragupal
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court