Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.46 seconds)
P.M.Elavarasan vs Mrs.A.Sujatha cites

Saradambal Ammal vs Sambanda Mudaliar on 17 January, 1962

9. The question that arises for consideration in this application is as to whether Rule 8 of Order IX of the Original Side Rules, completely bars production of documents in cross-examination of witnesses by the adversary. The Division Bench of this Court in Saradambal Ammal v. Sambanda Mudaliar, reported in 1962 (2) MLJ 166, had held that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, which are inconsistent with the Original Side Rules of this Court will not apply to the proceedings in the Original Side of this Court. Section 137 of the Evidence Act, vests a right of cross-examination on the adverse party and such right cannot be reduced to be empty formality.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

K.V. Kuppuswamy Ayyangar And Anr. vs The State Of Tamil Nadu, Represented By ... on 13 July, 1991

In K.V.Kuppuswamy Ayyangar and another v. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Chief Secretary, Madras and others reported in 1991 (2) MLJ 480, a Division Bench of this Court had held that the power under order VI Rule 17, is available to this Court for allowing amendment of the pliant. The Division Bench after considering the scope of Rule 3 of Order I of the Original Side Rules, held that the High Court will have the power to amend the plaint, under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, de hors the absence of a provision in the Original Side Rules.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1