The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the Trial Court's refusal to reopen a suit and recall witnesses after the judgment was reserved.
Revisions dismissed; pending applications for reopening closed; 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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Civil Revision Petition Nos.1028 and 1030 of 2018
Common Order:
Aggrieved by the refusal of the Trial Court to reopen and recall, the 6th defendant in a suit for declaration has come up with the revisions.
“2. I submit that the above suit is underwent trial and the Hon’ble Court was pleased to reserve the judgment on 08-12-2017 and at this stage, I came to know that at the time of cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, my counsel has not cross-examined on the documents relied by the plaintiffs and also not examined regarding some material and legal aspects which are essential and necessary to prove my case to cross-examine P.Ws.1 and 2 in the above aspects.
2
__________________________ V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
06th April, 2018. Ak
3
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
Civil Revision Petition Nos.1028 and 1030 of 2018
(Common Order)
06th April, 2018. (Ak)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court can be ordered to reopen the file and recall witnesses after the judgment was reserved.
Whether applications for reopening and recall filed after judgment reservation constitute a fair ground for interference in a revision petition.
6th Defendant
Plaintiffs/Respondents 1 and 2
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
