Y GANGANAIDU Vs. M SURKANTAM
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)The defendant in O.S. 231/85 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Bhimavaram is the revision petitioner. He filed LA. 1153/89 under Order 26 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of Commissioner to record the evidence of one Grandhi Suryanarayana. The witness is said to be seventy five years old and he is unable to move. That application was contested by the plaintiff/ respondent, on the ground that there is no necessity to examine the said witness.
(2.)The trial court dismissed the petition on 20-3-1990 holding that under Section 91 of the Evidence Act when the terms of a contract or pf a grant or any other disposition of the property have been reduced into the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of such document except the document itself. The correctness of that order is assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.
(3.)Shri E. S. Ramacharidra Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the order suffers from an error of jurisdiction inasmuch as an erroneous view of law the learned trial Judge failed to exercise his jurisdiction. I find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.