Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.64 seconds)
Namachivayam vs Anandharaman on 8 August, 2017 cites

V.K. Periasamy @ Perianna Gounder vs D. Rajan on 8 March, 2001

10. Considering all the facts, I hold that the Order of this Court, reported in (2001) 2 MLJ 235 (V.K.Periasamy alias Perianna Gounder V. D.Rajan) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and the judgment reported in (1999) 1 LW 660 (Kaliaperumal V. Pankajavalli & 2 others), relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, before the learned Judge is not applicable to the facts of the case.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 29 - P Sridevan - Full Document

Kaliaperumal vs Pankajavalli And Ors. on 27 October, 1998

10. Considering all the facts, I hold that the Order of this Court, reported in (2001) 2 MLJ 235 (V.K.Periasamy alias Perianna Gounder V. D.Rajan) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and the judgment reported in (1999) 1 LW 660 (Kaliaperumal V. Pankajavalli & 2 others), relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, before the learned Judge is not applicable to the facts of the case.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Ravi And Gurunathapillai vs Ramar on 11 October, 2007

The Division Bench judgment, reported in (2008) 1 LW 1055 (Ravi & Gurunathapillai Vs. Ramar), relied on by the learned counsel for the first respondent is also not applicable to the present case, on the ground that the petitioner has not given any reason for examining the third respondent. The petitioners have stated that the third respondent is competent person to speak about the will and codicil and he can prove the genuineness of the will and codicil. Further, by examining the third respondent before the petitioners, with regard the will and codicil, the first respondent will not be prejudiced. The learned Judge, has erred in dismissing the application and committed irregularity and has not properly appreciated the facts and law, relating to examining opposite party as a witness on behalf of the other party. For the above reason, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order dated 11.07.2011, made in I.A.No.1377 of 2010 in O.S.No.597 of 2004, is set aside.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - P K Misra - Full Document

Appavoo Asary vs Sornammal Fernandez And Anr. on 22 March, 1933

In fact, in Appavoo Asary V. Sornamal Fernandes, 65 M.L.J. 734: A.I.R. 1933 Mad. 821, the learned Judge held as seen from the passage extracted above that when one party desires the presence of other party, the proper procedure is under Order 16. Therefore, if there are very good reasons, the Court may exercise its discretion in favour of the party seeking permission. The case laws with regard to Order 18, Rule 2 are to the effect that even the defendants who support the case of the plaintiff are entitled to give evidence and it is in fact their right and they cannot be shut out. In this case, the first defendant is not the contesting defendant and from the averments in the affidavit, it is seen that he has been made a party only, so that the suit would not be dismissed for non-joinder."
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1