Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.32 seconds)
Documents citing Katakam Viswanatham vs Katakam China Srirama Murthy And Ors. on 24 February, 2004

Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd vs Cargill India Pvt Ltd on 13 July, 2018

11. The decision of this Court in KATAKAM VISWANATHAM v. KATAKAM CHINA SRIRAMA MURTHY3 was also taken help of by the counsel for the petitioner, to contend that the xerox copies cannot be admitted in evidence. In the above decision, this Court upheld that typed copy of a document cannot be admitted as secondary evidence unless the conditions enumerated in Section 65 of the Act are shown to exist. The ruling does not speak about the admissibility or otherwise of xerox copies.
Telangana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

M.A. Majeed vs M/S. Blue Birds Educational Society. on 10 October, 2023

5. Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners submitted that the court below had not followed the mandatory provisions under Order VIII Rule 1A of C.P.C.. The documents are filed along with a memo, as such, the petitioners had lost an opportunity to file counter and to record their objections. The High Court had not directed the trial court to dispense with the procedure prescribed while granting liberty to file a fresh application at the time of filing the said documents on record. No explanation was given by the respondents as to why the said documents could not be filed along with the pleadings. It was a matter of right for the respondents to object and oppose receipt of documents and relied upon the judgments of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Katakam Viswanthan Vs. Katakam China Srirama Murthy and Ors. 1, Abdul Khader @ Abdul Rauf & Ors. Vs. Aktharunnisa Begum (died) by LRs.
Telangana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - G R Rani - Full Document

Amjed Mohiuddin vs Mohammed Habib Ahmed Khan And 3 Others on 6 September, 2024

In this connection, learned counsel for the defendant Nos.3 and 4 relied upon decisions of High Court for the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh in Katakam Vishwanath v. Katakam China Srirama Murthy 6, Pavuluru Mohan Rao v. Gudipati Krishnamma and others 7, Nyayapathi Srinivas Raghavan v. Burra Adinarayana Sastry 8. As stated supra, the alleged unregistered sale deed, which is sought to be declared as null and void, is in possession of the defendants. Perhaps that might be the reason for the plaintiff for not filing the said document at the time of filing of the plaint. Sub Clause (2) of Order VII Rule 14 of The Code of Civil Procedure prescribes that where any such document is not in possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession it is. As can be seen from the record, the plaintiff has specifically stated in the plaint that defendant Nos.3 and 4 have filed a document on 20.04.2009 in O.S.No.378 of 2009. When the alleged unregistered sale deed is not in possession of the plaintiff, he may not be in a position to produce the said document along with the plaint at the relevant point of time. When the plaintiff is not in a possession of such document, he shall at least aver as to 6 2004 AIR (AP) 522 7 2014 (2) ALD 29 8 2012 (6) ALD 452 30 MB,J & MGP,J CCCA Nos.157 & 26/2015 in whose possession the said document is in. It appears that the reason behind the above said provision in asking the plaintiff to file the relevant documents at the time of filing of the plaint itself is that permitting production of documents directly at the stage of cross-examination of a witness and/or a party to a suit would amount to springing a surprise and hence, it is impermissible. However, in the present case, the defendants are not disputing the existence of the said unregistered sale deed, dated 16.02.1998. Therefore, the principle laid down in the above said decisions cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case.
Telangana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Imtiaz Ahmed And Another vs Mohammed Habib Ahmed Khan And 2 Others on 6 September, 2024

In this connection, learned counsel for the defendant Nos.3 and 4 relied upon decisions of High Court for the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh in Katakam Vishwanath v. Katakam China Srirama Murthy 6, Pavuluru Mohan Rao v. Gudipati Krishnamma and others 7, Nyayapathi Srinivas Raghavan v. Burra Adinarayana Sastry 8. As stated supra, the alleged unregistered sale deed, which is sought to be declared as null and void, is in possession of the defendants. Perhaps that might be the reason for the plaintiff for not filing the said document at the time of filing of the plaint. Sub Clause (2) of Order VII Rule 14 of The Code of Civil Procedure prescribes that where any such document is not in possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession it is. As can be seen from the record, the plaintiff has specifically stated in the plaint that defendant Nos.3 and 4 have filed a document on 20.04.2009 in O.S.No.378 of 2009. When the alleged unregistered sale deed is not in possession of the plaintiff, he may not be in a position to produce the said document along with the plaint at the relevant point of time. When the plaintiff is not in a possession of such document, he shall at least aver as to 6 2004 AIR (AP) 522 7 2014 (2) ALD 29 8 2012 (6) ALD 452 30 MB,J & MGP,J CCCA Nos.157 & 26/2015 in whose possession the said document is in. It appears that the reason behind the above said provision in asking the plaintiff to file the relevant documents at the time of filing of the plaint itself is that permitting production of documents directly at the stage of cross-examination of a witness and/or a party to a suit would amount to springing a surprise and hence, it is impermissible. However, in the present case, the defendants are not disputing the existence of the said unregistered sale deed, dated 16.02.1998. Therefore, the principle laid down in the above said decisions cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case.
Telangana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1