Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.55 seconds)
S.Nirmala vs Shanthi Harikrishnan on 17 October, 2024 cites

Achyutana Pitchaiah Sarma vs Gorantla Chinna Veerayya And Ors. on 6 January, 1961

8. The appellant cited the case Achyuntana Pitchaiah Sarma vs Gorantla Chinna Veerayya and others AIR 1961 AP 420, which discusses the Court's power to order any party, witness, or person in the Court to leave if their presence may influence or embarrass any witnesses. It was observed in the citation that the Court must consider whether the request to exclude 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis OSA.No.187 of 2024 some one from the Court is well-founded and also consider objections from other party before deciding in the interest of justice. In our case, the 10th defendant was examined as DW1 on 27.02.2023 and cross-examined by the appellant/D3,5to7 on various dates from 13.03.2023 to 10.01.2024. DW1 was then cross examined by the 9th defendant on 05.02.2024. After these examinations, the appellants filed A.No.1912 of 2024 to eschew the cross examination of DW1 by the 9th defendant. It is clear from these facts that the appellants did not request the Court to have other parties to the suit cross examine DW1 before the appellants did so. The appellants did not raise any objections or request when the 9th defendant cross examined DW1 on 05.02.2024. The eschew application was filed after the completion of the cross examination of DW1 by the 9th defendant.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 3 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Hussens Hasanall Pulavwala vs Sabbirbhai Hasanali Pulavwala And Ors. on 11 March, 1981

10. The appellant side is relying on the Gujarat High Court Judgement Hussens Hasanall Pulawala Vs Sabbirbhai Hasanali Pulavwala and others MANU/GJ/0115/1981. This case involves the administration of the estate of the deceased individual. The sole plaintiff arrayed his stepbrother and sisters as D1 to D3, his true sisters as D4 and D5, and another defendant as D6. Defendants D1 to D3 and D6 filed written statements contesting the suit, while the defendants D4 and D5 filed written statements accepting the plaint averments and supporting the prayer made in the plaint. During the trial, the plaintiff (PW1) was examined in chief and cross-examined by the 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis OSA.No.187 of 2024 learned counsel for the defendants D2 and D3. Subsequently, the learned counsel for the defendants D2 and D3 with the leave of the Court left the Court to offer his prayer. In their absence, the learned counsel for the defendants D4 and D5 cross-examined PW1. When the learned counsel for D2 and D3 returned to the Court, they applied to expunge the cross- examination conducted by the learned counsel for D4 and D5. The trial Court allowed the application, accepting the plea of D2 and D3 that since D4 and D5 accepted the plaintiff's case, they are not adverse parties and as such not entitled to cross examine PW1. This decision was upheld by the Gujarat High Court. However, the citation does not apply to the current case because the appellants did not claim that D9's counsel cross examined DW1 in the absence of the appellants. Further on the 9th defendant's side, it was stated that she did not support the case of the plaintiff instead she also opposed the entitlement of the plaintiff's right to claim partition in the ancestral property since the plaintiff got married before the advent of Section 29A of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 introduced by the Tamil Nadu Government in the year 1989 and also claims rights/shares in the suit ancestral properties based on deemed partition as provided in Explanation 1 to Section 6 to Hindu 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis OSA.No.187 of 2024 Succession Act 1956 as before the 2005 Amendment since her father Chakrapani died in the year 1979. The appellants claim that E.K.Pattabirama Reddiar left a will dated 05.03.1982 and probate proceedings initiated by the deceased 1st defendant are still pending. The case of the deceased plaintiff and deceased 2nd defendant and their successors is that the said E.K.Pattabirama Reddiar died interstate. The 9th defendant also filed a separate suit for partition in C.S.No.476 of 2008 concerning properties left by E.K.Pattabirama Reddiar. These factors show that the 9th defendant is not sailing defendant with the plaintiff. Therefore, the facts of the case are different, and this citation does not apply to the current facts and circumstances.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 16 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document
1   2 Next