Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 45 in Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 45 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
T.Tamilarasan vs Arokkiasamy on 22 March, 2007
19. Now, applying the ratio laid down in the above referred
judgment herein also, though the appellant/defendant was provided with
an opportunity to file a counter affidavit in the application filed under
Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C., non-providing of opportunity to test the
veracity of the additional document would amount to non-proving of the
contents of the said document. In this regard, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent/plaintiff contended that the document
exhibited as 'A5' is a Circular, dated 11.06.1961, issued by the
Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Admn.) Department, in respect of the duties
and powers of the Executive Officers. Since the said document is a
public document, there is no necessity to provide an opportunity to the
other side to disprove the contents. Even assuming that the first
appellate Court had committed the mistake due to the said act, the
defendant is no way prejudiced. Further, if the matter is remanded back
again to the first appellate Court for the purpose of marking additional
document as an evidence after providing opportunity to the defendant, it
will lead to wastage of time and therefore, it is not necessary to consider
the submissions made by the appellant's counsel in this regard.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Sri Arthanareeswarar Of Tiruchengode ... vs T.M. Muthuswamy Padayachi, M. ... on 5 August, 2002
25.In this connection, it is necessary and useful to see the
judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri
Arthanareeswarar of Tiruchengode Vs. T.M.Muthuswamy
Padayachi etc. and others reported in 2003 (1) LW 386, wherein the
Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:-