judgment of K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy , reported in
(2011) 11 SCC 275, to contend that to reopen the stage of
evidence
Supreme Court
in K. K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy , (2011) 11 SCC 275 is also
misconceived. The said judgment is in the context
Antony Raod Transport Soulution Pvt. Ltd. v.
Varsha Joshi & Ors.11 .
5.6. The present case is filed by the Plaintiff only seeking to enforce ... delivery of eight
8
(2017) 241 DLT 481.
9
(2011) 11 SCC 275.
10
(2007) 11 SCC 374
11
2023 SCC OnLine Del 2266
Signature
Harishchandra Amarnath Puri vs Vijay Kumar Amarnath Puri And 4 Ors ... on 1 March, 2019
Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 08-10-2025
11:52:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC ... cases of K.K.Velusamy
vs. N.Palanisamy ( 2011) 11 SCC 275 , Budhia Swain vs. Gopinath
Deb (1999) 4 SCC 396 and order of Coordinate
material or evidence which could not be produced when the (2011)
11 SCC 275 evidence was being recorded. Order 18 Rule 17 is
24
primarily
material or evidence which could not be produced when the (2011)
11 SCC 275 evidence was being recorded. Order 18 Rule 17 is
24
primarily
case of K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy reported in (2011) 11 SCC
22
275, which is reproduced herein as under
Court of India in K.K.
.
Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy , (2011) 11 SCC 275 : & Mysore High Court
in Sivhamurthy Swamy v. Agodi Songanno
order.
55. In K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy ; (2011) 11 SCC 275, the Court has exhaustively dealt with the scope of Section