The High Court dismissed three Civil Revision Petitions challenging the rejection of applications to admit belated documents and recall a witness. The Court held there was a six-year delay and no error of jurisdiction below.
All Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed with no costs.
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
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the revision petitions challenging the dismissal of applications to召回 witness and admit belated documents due to long delay.
Whether the Court below committed an error of jurisdiction in rejecting the applications filed three years after evidence was closed.
Whether the petitioner's narration of oversight regarding the omission of photographs in the plaint list justifies admission.
M.S. Ramachandra Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
