Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing G.Sudhaker Reddy vs M.Pullaiah on 6 March, 2015

Sure Ranga Murali Krishna Reddy vs Sure Yerri Vara Prasada Reddy on 22 June, 2018

Unfortunately, in the absence of the counsel for the plaintiff, the matter was taken up and CC of the unregistered partition deed was marked as exhibit B1; and, the matter was adjourned for cross-examination of DW1. Thus, there was no opportunity for the plaintiff for objecting to the marking of the said document at the time when it was exhibited. The marking given does not amount to admission in evidence. The plaintiff has a right to question the admissibility of the said document at any stage of the suit, in view of the decision of this Court in G.Sudhakara Reddy v. M.Pullaiah [reported in 2015(3) ALT 575]; and, a decision of the Supreme Court in RVE Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Visweswara Swamy [2006(3) ALT 66]. Further, Order 13 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ('Code' for short), which deals with rejection of irrelevant or inadmissible documents says that 'the Court may at any stage of the suit reject any document, which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, after recording the grounds of such rejection.'
Telangana High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suresh Barik @ Bibhar vs Surekha Kumbhar & Others ... Opposite ... on 18 November, 2021

7. Per contra, Mr. B.Sahoo has argued that the sole purpose of examining the concerned person is to ascertain as to if he is the same person who had scribed the instruments involving the case land and this is highly relevant to decide the possession of the CRLMC No.1801/2020 Page 4 of 8 parties. It is also contended that the strict rules of evidence as laid down in the Evidence Act are not applicable and in any case, the provision under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. being a part of the Code of Criminal Procedure laying down its own procedure, the provisions of C.P.C. are not applicable in any manner whatsoever.
Orissa High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S Mishra - Full Document

Sure Ranga Murali Krishna Reddy S/O Late ... vs Sure Yerri Vara Prasada Reddy And Others on 22 June, 2018

Unfortunately, in the absence of the counsel for the plaintiff, the matter was taken up and CC of the unregistered partition deed was marked as exhibit B1; and, the matter was adjourned for cross-examination of DW1. Thus, there was no opportunity for the plaintiff for objecting to the marking of the said document at the time when it was exhibited. The marking given does not amount to admission in evidence. The plaintiff has a right to question the admissibility of the said document at any stage of the suit, in view of the decision of this Court in G.Sudhakara Reddy v. M.Pullaiah [reported in 2015(3) ALT 575]; and, a decision of the Supreme Court in RVE Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Visweswara Swamy [2006(3) ALT 66]. Further, Order 13 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (Code for short), which deals with rejection of irrelevant or inadmissible documents says that the Court may at any stage of the suit reject any document, which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, after recording the grounds of such rejection.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 32 - Cited by 4 - M S Murti - Full Document
1