Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing N. Balaraju And Anr. vs G. Vidhyadhar on 22 June, 2004

K.Seetha Ramudu 3 Others vs Kistammagari Chinna Venkata Swamy on 11 December, 2020

In view of the principles laid down in the above judgment granting permission to cross-examine his own witness exercising power under Section 154 of the Evidence Act is purely discretionary in nature. Even otherwise, when PW.5 summoned to prove the attestation of Ex.A.1, when he spoke about his signing on the document is sufficient to constitute attestation. However, failure to know the contents of the document is not relevant consideration to constitute an attestation of a document under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Therefore, I find absolutely no ground to grant permission to cross-examine PW.5 by the plaintiff since sufficiently the witness supported about the attestation of the document Ex.A.1 in his examination-in-chief itself. Therefore, the order passed by the Court below is erroneous on the face of it and this court, while exercising the power under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, can reverse the order of the court as the court below exceeded its jurisdiction. Hence, the order dated 21.07.2014 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur in O.S.No.194 of 2007 is hereby set aside, while permitting the petitioner counsel to cross- examine the witness in accordance with law.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - M S Murthy - Full Document

Addagatla Narendar vs Some Vijayalakshmi on 31 January, 2006

In N. Balaraju v. G. Vidyadhar , while dealing with the aspect of summoning of witnesses in the absence of filing of list of witnesses it was held that it is permissible if the Court is satisfied with the reasons given by the party seeking such relief under Order XVI Rule 1(3) of the CPC. The reasons, which had been specified in the affidavit filed in support of the application, already had been referred to supra. It may also be pertinent to observe that other two CRPs preferred by the self same revision petitioner questioning the orders in relation to the amendment of the pleadings also had been disposed of today in CRP Nos. 2042 and 2372 of 2004.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 12 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Smt. Malabanti Ratnamala W/O. Late M. ... vs Elishamma @ Elizebeth, Shobhan Kumar, ... on 1 October, 2007

In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Mange Ram v. Brij Mohan ; Rani Bai v. Thakur Ganesh Singh 2003 (2) APLJ 443 (HC); Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao ; Thakur Sen Negi v. Dev Raj Negi 1993 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 645; Mange Ram v. Brij Mohan (1983) 4 Supreme Court Cases 365; N. Balraju v. G. Vidhyadhar 2006 (5) ALT 55.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - G Rohini - Full Document

T. Lakshmaiah vs T Ramaiah on 30 January, 2026

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the plaint averments and the defence taken by the petitioner / 1st defendant, more particularly in Para No.7 of the written statement, advanced arguments and contends that the learned Trial Court went wrong in dismissing the application 3 in question without considering the matter in a proper perspective. He submits that the learned Trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and went wrong in dismissing the I.A., on unsustainable grounds, without considering that the documents sought to be summoned are essential for a just and proper adjudication of the issue involved in the suit. He also contends that the learned Trial Court ought to have appreciated that whether the petitioner is a party to the document or not, is not a material aspect to consider the prayer for summoning of the document and further that filing of a criminal compliant in respect of the documents sought to be summoned is not a bar or come in the way of the petitioner to invoke the other remedies available in Law. Making the said submissions and relying on the decisions in Nankani Kishan v. M.Shankar Narayana1, N.Balaraju v. G.Vidyadhar2, Addagatla Narendar v. Some Vijayalakshmi 3 and Paruchuri Adi Lakshmi v. Paruchuri Nagendramma and Ors.,4 etc., the learned counsel seeks to allow the Revision Petition by setting aside the order under challenge.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N Jayasurya - Full Document

A. Shankar Lingam vs Meharunnissa Begum And Ors. on 3 January, 2007

There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition of Law which had been laid down in the decisions which had been cited by the Counsel representing the revision petitioner. The evidence of the defendant had been commenced from 28-11-2005 and since then the matter had undergone several adjournments. Further it is stated that the petitioner already had examined four witnesses and the evidence was closed on 6-11-2006 and the matter was heard on behalf of the plaintiff. At the stage of arguments of the defendants, again an application was filed to recall D.W.I and the same was allowed and Exs.B.12 to B.22 were marked. Thereafter, the arguments of the plaintiff were heard and again the matter was posted for the arguments of the defendants and at this stage, the present application was filed. It is also pertinent to note that the suit filed is for eviction of the petitioner on the strength of the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Further reasons had been recorded in Para 7 and it was recorded that the examination of this witness may not serve any purpose and only with a view to further procrastinate the matter, this application had been thought of. When the application is such a belated application and also not a bona fide application and in the light of the reasons recorded in Paras 6 and 7 of the impugned order, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said order cannot be found fault and even otherwise, this is not a fit case to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the same, the CRP shall stand dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

United India Insu.Co. Ltd & Anr vs D.J. Sriganganagar & Anr on 19 November, 2008

vs. District Judge, Sriganganagar DATE OF ORDER : 19/11/2008 2/4 Ors - AIR 1983 SC 925, decision of this Court in case of Kalu and another vs. Chhitar and others - AIR 1987 Rajasthan 206, and decision of Andhra Pradesh High in case of N.Balraju and another vs. G.Vidhyadhar - AIR 2004 AP 516. Learned counsel also relied upon the provisions of Section 30 and 148 of CPC.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - V Kothari - Full Document
1   2 Next