This Common Order dismissed three Civil Revision Petitions challenging the rejection of applications to recall evidence and reopen plaintiff's evidence. The High Court held that the delay was excessive and no error of jurisdiction warranted interference.
All Civil Revision Petitions dismissed; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.
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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO C.R.P.Nos.2251, 2153 and 2156 of 2017
COMMON ORDER:
These three Revision Petitions are filed challenging the orders dt.07-03-2017 in I.A.Nos.142 of 2017, 141 of 2017 and 140 of 2017 to receive the documents and mark the same, to recall P.W.2 for the purpose of marking the documents and to reopen the plaintiff’s evidence for the purpose of recalling of P.W.2 and marking the documents, respectively.
MSRJ C.R.P.No.2251 of 2017 & batch
2
order passed by the Court below warranting interference by this Court.
__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Date: 28-04-2017 Kvr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court should interfere with the lower Court's order rejecting applications to recall evidence after a delay of six years?
Whether the petitioner's oversight in not filing photographs initially excuses the current delay in seeking to mark them?
Petitioner
Respondents
M.S. Ramachandra Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
