Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

N.X.FRANCIS, AGED 47 YEARS versus DARMADEEPTHI COMPANY REGD. OFFICE AT

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


N.X.FRANCIS, AGED 47 YEARS v. DARMADEEPTHI COMPANY REGD. OFFICE AT - CRP No. 370 of 2006 [2007] RD-KL 387 (5 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 370 of 2006()

1. N.X.FRANCIS, AGED 47 YEARS,
... Petitioner

2. JANCY FRANCIS, AGED 41, W/O.FRANCIS,

3. RAGHAVAN NAIR, AGED 65 YERS,

Vs

1. DARMADEEPTHI COMPANY REGD. OFFICE AT
... Respondent

2. T.A.PATHROSE, AGED 42, S/O.ALIAS,

3. JOSEPH FRANCIS, AGED 43, S/O.FRANCIS,

For Petitioner :SRI.V.K.VEERAVUNNY

For Respondent :SRI.P.T.SEBASTIAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

Dated :05/01/2007

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

C.R.P.NO.370 OF 2006

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2007

ORDER

Petitioners are the defendants 1,2 and 4 in O.S.146/04 on the file of Munsiff Court, Aluva. First respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 and 3 are other defendants. Plaintiff filed I.A.1206/06 for permission to examine Asst. Manager of plaintiff Company as a witness. Under order dated, 15.6.06, learned Munsiff allowed the application. It is challenged in this revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Under the impugned interlocutory order, the suit has not been decided. Even if I.A.1206/06 was dismissed, it would not have terminated the suit. Therefore, under proviso to Section 115 of the Code, no revision will lie against that order. Even on merits, as per the order leaned Munsiff has only permitted plaintiff to examine Asst. Manger as a witness. The contention of petitioners was that Asst. Manager is not competent to represent the Company in the legal matters. The effect of the evidence of that witness is to be decided in the suit. Even if Asst. Manager is examined as a witness, petitioners are entitled to raise their contentions on the sufficiency of his C.R.P.370/06 2 evidence. In such circumstances there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Revision petition is dismissed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,JUDGE

Acd


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.