The rejection of the earlier Memo of the respondent filed for reserving his right to lead his evidence after the closure of the evidence of the defendant does not have any bearing on the request of the former to permit him to examine the attestor on the ground that he was not available at a time when his evidence was recorded. After all, the ultimate endeavour of the Court is to arrive at proper and correct conclusions on the issues arising before it. In a suit for recovery of money on the strength of a promissory note, the evidence of an attestor is very crucial. Such an important evidence cannot be shut out only on the ground of delay. I am therefore of the opinion that the order of the lower Court permitting the respondent to let in the evidence of one of the attestors of the suit promissory note does not suffer from any jurisdictional error calling for interference of this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The rejection of the earlier Memo of the respondent filed for reserving his right to lead his evidence after the closure of the evidence of the defendant does not have any bearing on the request of the former to permit him to examine the attestor on the ground that he was not available at a time when his evidence was recorded. After all, the ultimate endeavour of the Court is to arrive at proper and correct conclusions on the issues arising before it. In a suit for recovery of money on the strength of a promissory note, the evidence of an attestor is very crucial. Such an important evidence cannot be shut out only on the ground of delay. I am therefore of the opinion that the order of the lower Court permitting the respondent to let in the evidence of one of the attestors of the suit promissory note does not suffer from any jurisdictional error calling for interference of this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)