Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)A.K. Muhammed Kunhi vs Muhammed Haji on 13 May, 2010
12. That was a case where the witness after signing the
deposition, pointed out certain defects and wanted to correct the
same and that was declined by the Court and that was upheld by
this Court. This Court has considered the same question and gave
direction regarding the procedure to be followed where correction
pointed out by the witness in the deposition recorded, in the
decision reported in Muhammed Kunhi V. Muhammed Haji
(2014 (3) KLT 1027) and this Court also relied on the decision
O.P.(FC).No.5 of 2017 10
reported in Bhagavat Singh's case (supra) and also the
decision reported in Mirmohammad Omar v. State of West
Bengal (AIR 1989 SC 1785) where it has been held that the object
of Section 278 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not intended to
permit the witness to resile from the statement in the name of
correction as follows:
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 125 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
G.Bhagavat Singh vs Bar Council Of Kerala on 18 August, 2009
12. That was a case where the witness after signing the
deposition, pointed out certain defects and wanted to correct the
same and that was declined by the Court and that was upheld by
this Court. This Court has considered the same question and gave
direction regarding the procedure to be followed where correction
pointed out by the witness in the deposition recorded, in the
decision reported in Muhammed Kunhi V. Muhammed Haji
(2014 (3) KLT 1027) and this Court also relied on the decision
O.P.(FC).No.5 of 2017 10
reported in Bhagavat Singh's case (supra) and also the
decision reported in Mirmohammad Omar v. State of West
Bengal (AIR 1989 SC 1785) where it has been held that the object
of Section 278 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not intended to
permit the witness to resile from the statement in the name of
correction as follows:
1