Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 45 YEARS versus SHIHAB RAHIMAN, AGED 20 YEARS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 45 YEARS v. SHIHAB RAHIMAN, AGED 20 YEARS - WP(C) No. 19898 of 2007(R) [2007] RD-KL 11438 (28 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 19898 of 2007(R)

1. ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 45 YEARS,
... Petitioner

2. MUHAZINA, D/O. ABDUL MAJEED,

Vs

1. SHIHAB RAHIMAN, AGED 20 YEARS,
... Respondent

2. SHIFANA, AGED 19 YEARS,

3. K.UMMER, AGED 55 YEARS,

4. BUSHRA, AGED 34 YEARS,

5. ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 28 YEARS,

6. KUNHEEVI, D/O. MOHAMMED ALI,

7. ABDUL MANAF, AGED 25 YEARS,

8. HABEEB RAHIMAN, AGED 25 YEARS,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.FIROZ

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

Dated :28/06/2007

O R D E R

M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

WP(C)No.19898 OF 2007 R

Dated this the 28th June, 2007.



JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Subordinate Judges Court, Kozhikode in I.A.1047/07 and 1740/07. I.A.1047/07 is for receiving an additional witness list and I.A.1740/07 is for adjournment of the case. Now the challenge is confined to the order in I.A.1047/07. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the suit is filed by minors to set aside the document executed by their father as guardian. There was no prayer to set aside the document at the time of the institution of the suit, but after the evidence was closed an amendment application was filed to set aside the documents. It was allowed, plaint was amended and additional written statement had been filed. After the incorporation of the new prayer to set aside the document the contesting defendant wants to adduce evidence by examining first writ petitioner's wife, Noorjahan. When an amendment has taken effect contending that the document is liable to be set aside and when the defendant feels that evidence has to be let in to counter against the allegations in the plaint it is only just and equitable that the additional witness sought to be examined be WPC 19898/07 2 permitted so that unnecessary allegation of shutting out evidence will not arise later. Therefore the writ petition is allowed and the order in I.A.1047/07 is set aside and the learned Subordinate Judge is directed to permit the writ petitioners to examine Noorjahan as their witness. It is made clear that the writ petitioners have to co-operate with the court for examining Noorjahan as expeditiously as possible. M.N.KRISHNAN Judge jj


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.