web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Marking of Documents in IAs

R.Parijatham and Anr Vs M.Kameshwari and Ors on 21 July, 2017

Posted on December 19, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Based on Division Bench judgment here, AP High Court has passed this observation,

From Para 8,

8. Before closing these cases, we feel the necessity of observing that instances have been coming to the notice of this Court, where some Subordinate Courts have not been marking the documents while disposing of the interlocutory applications. In this context, we are reminded of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in T.Bhoopal Reddy vs. K.R.Laxmi Bai [1998(1) ALT 292 (D.B.)], wherein it was observed that in order to come to a prima facie conclusion, both the trial Court and the Appellate Court should necessarily be able to locate the documents and know its contents to agree with either of the contentions; that nowhere it is envisaged that the case of the contesting parties can only be decided on the affidavits and not on any other material and that in the absence of any specific rule so far as marking of documents at the interlocutory stage is concerned, the Courts would not be justified in not giving any marking at all to such of the documents on which both sides would rely.Regrettably, despite this authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench, some Courts have been ignoring the same and not marking the documents. The case on hand reflects one such instance. We, therefore, direct the High Court on administrative side to issue a Circular directing the Subordinate Courts to mark the documents filed by the parties to the interlocutory applications before deciding such applications.

R.Parijatham and Anr Vs M.Kameshwari and Ors on 21 July, 2017

Citations:

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38957892/


Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

 

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Marking of Documents in IAs R.Parijatham and Anr Vs M.Kameshwari and Ors

Ankem Madhava Rao and Anr Vs Simhadri Rama Rao and Anr on 5 October, 2015

Posted on December 15, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Based on the earlier two judgments here and here, Hon’ble Sri Justice M. Seetharama Murti of AP HC has noted in this judgment that,

This Court in a decision in A.P. Minerals Development Corporation Limited Hyderabad v. M/s.Trimex Minerals Pvt.Ltd., and another decision in Bhoopal Reddy and another v. K.Lakshmi Bhai and another held that the practice of marking the documents in the interlocutory application only shall be continued. It is thus obvious that the documents filed by either of the parties shall have to be marked, unless the parties specifically opt for not marking either on the ground of inadmissibility or for some other reasons of their own.

Ankem Madhava Rao and Anr Vs Simhadri Rama Rao and Anr on 5 October, 2015

Citations:

Indiankanoon.org link:


Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Ankem Madhava Rao and Anr Vs Simhadri Rama Rao and Anr Marking of Documents in IAs Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced Sandeep Pamarati

A.P. Minerals Development Corporation Limited Vs MS. Trimex Minerals Pvt Ltd on 21 November, 1997

Posted on December 15, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Similar to this judgment here, AP HC has delivered this judgment by the same Judge, on the necessity of marking documents even in Interlocutory Applications.

A.P. Minerals Development Corporation Limited Vs MS. Trimex Minerals Pvt Ltd on 21 November, 1997

Citations: 1998 (1) ALD 533, 1998 (1) ALT 182

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/965255/


Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged A.P. Minerals Development Corporation Limited Vs MS. Trimex Minerals Pvt Ltd Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Marking of Documents in IAs Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced Sandeep Pamarati

T. Bhopal Reddy and Anr Vs KR Lakshmi Bai and Anr on 6 November, 1997

Posted on December 15, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Honorable Justice Sri P. Venkatarama Reddi had delivered this judgment wherein it was held that,

9. Before parting with the case, we have to record the difficulty which we experienced to find out the nature and details of 35 documents said to have been filed by the petitioners and 118 documents said to have been filed by the respondents.

10. The learned Subordinate Judge has merely stated that the petitioners have filed 35 documents while the respondents have filed 118 documents. Probably in view of the judgment of our learned brother Mr. Justice B.K. Somasekham in G. Sambrajyam v. P. Mahalakshamim and Ors., 1995 (1) ALD 358, that there is no provision in the Civil Rules of Practice for marking the documents as exhibits at the stage of interlocutory matters, the learned Subordinate Judge has not given any mark to these documents. This led to some inconvenience to us while disposing of this appeal. In our opinion, even though Rule 115 of the Civil Rules of Practice envisages marking of exhibits adduced in evidence as ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘X’ series as the case may be during trial, the same cannot be construed so as to exclude the marking of any document in an interlocutory matter. It may be so that the Court while deciding the interlocutory application will look into the prima facie case of both sides. In that process, necessarily, each side will be depending upon certain documents which may ultimately be sought to be proved during the course of trial.

11. To visualise that the contesting parties in an interlocutory application will not be able to re!y on the documentary evidence upon which they ultimately rely in the trial would be placing the contesting party in an interlocutory application to rely only on the affidavits which the learned Judge thought would be the correct procedure, it may be so that the learned Judge was quite conscious that in spite of the fact that the affidavits cannot be the evidence as they are not included in the definition of evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, the Court may permit any affidavits to be produced under Order 19 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. That being the premise on which the learned Judge proceeded to observe that the documents cannot be given a marking, the only alternative for any trial Court which hears interlocutory applications would be to decide the prima facie case only on the strength of affidavits. At the same time, we are unable to comprehend as to how a prima facie case is established by the successful party without referring to and marking the documents.

12. It may be pointed out that a deponent of an affidavit who can be called upon to appear for cross-examination cannot be confronted with any document on which the adversory places reliance. If the documents even at that stage are not permitted to be marked, the entire cross-examination of the deponent may be a mere denial of the suggestions made. If in a particular case the deponent himself was the author of any document or a party to it, there would not be any opportunity to the opposite parly or himself to explain the circumstances under which the document was executed or to admit or deny the genuineness or otherwise of the same. No doubt, we are conscious of the fact that a document on which a particular party relies to strengthen his own case can only be admitted in the evidence during the trial of the suit. However, as observed by us supra if the same are not given any marking, both sides would be at a disadvantage to support their respective contentions even in an interlocutory application. We think that the learned Judge has not envisaged that such of the documents on which the parties relied would have to be described in extenso in the order if they were not to be marked. Further, there would be any amount of inconvenience for any appellate Court to search for a document on which the parties have relied and go through its contents, more so, if there were a large number of documents filed by the contesting parties.

13. Thus, in order to come to a prima facie conclusion, both the trial Court and the appellate Court should necessarily be able to locate the documents and know its contents to agree with either of the contentions, we may also point out that it is nowhere envisaged that the case of the contesting parties can only be decided on the affidavits and not on any other material. Thus, in the absence of any specific rule so far as marking of documents in an interlocutory stage is concerned, the Courts would not be justified in not giving any marking at all to such of the documents on which both sides would rely.

14. It is another mailer that affidavits filed by both sides are not given marking for they after all form part of the record. But to say that the documentary evidence on which the parties would ultimately rely in the suit would not be of any relevance at the time of deciding the interlocutory matters would lead to any amount of inconvenience which was in fact felt by us in disposing of the above civil miscellaneous appeal.

15. As stated earlier, we are quite conscious of the fact that the documents marked for purpose of determination of any interlocutory application cannot be treated as evidence per se but would enable the Court to prima facie come to a conclusion about the merits or demerits of the contentions advanced. For the reasons aforesaid, we disapprove the view taken by Mr. Justice Somasekhara in the case referred to supra insofar as marking of the documents in the interlocutory applications.

16. Further, in order to avoid any future difficulties, it is desirable to incorporate a rule in Civil Rules of Practice for giving a separate marking to the documents relied upon by either party in interlocutory proceedings by directing the trial Courts to mark such of the documents relied upon by the petitioners in the interlocutory applications as ‘P’ series and the documents relied upon by the respondents as ‘R’ series to avoid any difficulty in identifying the documents at a later stage of the proceedings and also during trial.

T. Bhopal Reddy and Anr Vs KR Lakshmi Bai and Anr on 6 November, 1997

Citations: [1998 (1) ALD 770], [1998 (1) ALT 292],

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/330119/


Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Marking of Documents in IAs Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced Sandeep Pamarati T. Bhopal Reddy and Anr Vs KR Lakshmi Bai and Anr

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @SandeepPamarati

My MRA Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Anil Kumar Talan Vs on State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) on 12 Jul 2022 August 16, 2022
  • CMD Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd and Anr Vs Rajesh Chandra Shrivastava and Ors on 07 Apr 2022 August 15, 2022
  • Neera Singh Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Ors on 23 Feb 2007 August 11, 2022
  • Neera Singh Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Ors on 21 Feb 2007 August 11, 2022
  • Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022 August 10, 2022

Most Read Posts

  • Jagdish Shrivastava Vs State of Maharashtra on 11 Mar 2022 (2,166 views)
  • Bhagyashri Jagdish Jaiswal Vs Jagdish Sajjanlala Jaiswal and Anr on 26 Feb 2022 (1,854 views)
  • Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI and Anr on 11 Jul 2022 (1,329 views)
  • Luckose Zachariah Vs Joseph Joseph on 18 Feb 2022 (1,106 views)
  • Prabha Tyagi Vs Kamlesh Devi on 12 May 2022 (1,106 views)
  • Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar on 08 Feb 2022 (1,056 views)
  • Gayatri alias Gadigevva Vs Vijay Hadimani on 03 Dec 2021 (1,054 views)
  • Rajendra Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand on 03 Jan 2022 (985 views)
  • Ravneet Kaur Vs Prithpal Singh Dhingra on 24 Feb 2022 (954 views)
  • Kamlesh Devi Vs Jaipal and Ors on 04 Oct 2019 (954 views)

Tags

Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (317)Reportable Judgement or Order (305)Landmark Case (300)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (232)Work-In-Progress Article (214)Catena of Landmark Judgments (199)1-Judge Bench Decision (121)Sandeep Pamarati (87)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (76)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (73)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (51)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (51)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (46)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (43)CrPC 482 - Quash (37)Advocate Antics (34)Rules of the Act/Ordinance/Notification/Circular (33)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (33)IPC 498a - Not Made Out (32)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (611)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (296)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (154)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (108)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (88)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (65)General Study Material (55)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (51)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (48)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (45)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (39)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (39)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (36)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (34)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (27)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (25)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (24)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (18)High Court of Patna Judgment or Order or Notification (15)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao on 19 October, 2016
  • muralidhar Rao Sirangi on Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao on 19 October, 2016
  • ShadesOfKnife on J.Shyam Babu Vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2017
  • anuj on J.Shyam Babu Vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2017
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003

Archives of SoK

  • August 2022 (7)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (28)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (29)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (35)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (58)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (19)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (102)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • Performance issues affecting Gateway Resolver for requests reaching San Jose. August 12, 2022
    Aug 12, 16:12 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Aug 12, 15:40 UTCMonitoring - A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results.Aug 12, 15:30 UTCIdentified - The issue has been identified and a fix is being implemented.Aug 12, 15:30 UTCInvestigating - Cloudflare customers may experience performance related issues affecting Gateway Resolver for […]
  • Network Connectivity Issues in Omaha NE August 12, 2022
    Aug 12, 15:00 UTCResolved - Cloudflare is investigating issues with network performance in Omaha NE, users in the region may have experienced connectivity issues connecting to Cloudflare-protected websites between 15:01 UTC - 15:26 UTC.
  • 500 API Errors on Custom Error Page August 12, 2022
    Aug 12, 09:07 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Aug 12, 08:52 UTCMonitoring - A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results.Aug 12, 07:36 UTCInvestigating - Cloudflare is aware of and investigating an issue with Cloudflare Custom Pages which potentially impacts multiple customers. Further detail will be provided as more information becomes […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 177.137.29.3 | SW August 15, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 4,764 | First: 2021-02-19 | Last: 2022-08-15
  • 186.211.105.202 | SDC August 15, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 14,816 | First: 2019-01-19 | Last: 2022-08-15
  • 139.5.88.64 | S August 15, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 6,266 | First: 2019-02-05 | Last: 2022-08-15
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 651 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel