Single judge dismissed two revision petitions challenging orders rejecting applications to reopen a specific performance suit for examination of an expert whose opinion deemed thumb impressions unfit for comparison, upholding the lower court.
Civil Revision Petitions dismissed with no costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending stand 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.2230 and 2246 of 2017
COMMON ORDER:
These two Revision Petitions are filed assailing the orders dt.28-03-2017 in I.A.Nos.270 and 269 of 2017 in O.S.No.170 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem.
the execution of the agreement of sale.
MSRJ C.R.P.Nos.2230 & 2246 of 2017
2
of the opinion that the Court below has not committed any error of jurisdiction in rejecting the applications.
No costs.
shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Date: 28-04-2017 Kvr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the expert should be examined as a witness after the opinion that documents are unfit for comparison.
Whether the suit should be reopened to appoint a practicing advocate-commissioner to examine the expert.
Petitioners
1st Respondent
M.S. Ramachandra Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
