Live
- Steel plant pensioners seek higher pension
- MyVoice: Views of our readers 13th December 2024
- Demand for TTD calendars, diaries sees a surge
- A pathway to sustainable peace
- Act Decisively On Microplastics
- Entrepreneurs exhorted to grab opportunities, grow globally
- Do celebrities think they are above the law?
- Lokesh fiat on MSME applications
- CM sets administrative goals at Collectors’ Conference
- ADB okays ₹8K cr to develop Amaravati
Just In
HC sets aside plea seeking cross-examination of petitioners
In a verdict of far reaching import Justice B Siva Sanker Rao said, “The party seeking permission of the court to cross-examine the declarant (of an affidavit) must disclose the reasons why it is necessary to cross-examine the deponent and it should not merely be a pretext for delaying the proceedings.”
In a verdict of far reaching import Justice B Siva Sanker Rao said, “The party seeking permission of the court to cross-examine the declarant (of an affidavit) must disclose the reasons why it is necessary to cross-examine the deponent and it should not merely be a pretext for delaying the proceedings.”
The judge was dealing with a revision petition filed by Nadella Estates seeking to cross-examine over 300 persons who filed applications before the civil court seeking to come on record in a civil suit. The realtor filed the original suit against third parties. The 300-and-odd persons moved the court contending that they were purchasers of various extents of land in the land in question at Kollur village at Ramachandrapuram.
In the present petition the realtor sought permission to cross-examine the deponents. “Tendency to procrastinate proceedings by any means has to be deprecated, but at the same time sufficiency of the grounds or reasons for seeking permission to cross-examine the deponents require to be cross-examined.
The court is under an obligation to pass an appropriate order giving cogent reasons while allowing or rejecting the application,” the judge said. On the facts of the case, the judge ruled that it was not a case for cross-examining the deponent.
© 2024 Hyderabad Media House Limited/The Hans India. All rights reserved. Powered by hocalwire.com