TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dismissal of Civil Revision Petition Upheld on Signature Discrepancies & Evidence Relevance</h1> <h3>Sugandhi, G. Santhanalakshmi Versus P. Rajkumar, N. Gopalakrishnan, N. Sowrirajan, N. Venkatramandadoss</h3> Sugandhi, G. Santhanalakshmi Versus P. Rajkumar, N. Gopalakrishnan, N. Sowrirajan, N. Venkatramandadoss - TMI Issues:1. Receiving additional documents in a civil revision petition.2. Contention regarding the genuineness of the documents filed.3. Examination by Court Commissioner and statements made.4. Dismissal of the petition by the trial Court.5. Objections to marking documents related to the second defendant.6. Variation in signatures and objections expressed by respondent.7. Dismissal of the civil revision petition.Analysis:1. The civil revision petition was filed against the order passed in an application for receiving additional documents in a lawsuit for permanent injunction. The petitioner, the first defendant, sought to submit documents obtained recently, arguing they were not available when filing the written statements.2. The plaintiff contended that the documents submitted by the petitioner were not genuine, as they were not signed by the first defendant and had discrepancies in signatures. The plaintiff also argued that the documents were not related to the property in question and could not be accepted by the Court.3. The Court Commissioner's report revealed that the first defendant claimed memory loss and health issues, stating her husband would proceed with the case. The Commissioner's report was submitted to the Court, leading to the trial Court's dismissal of the petition due to inconsistencies and lack of genuineness.4. The trial Court dismissed the petition after considering the arguments and evidence presented, including the discrepancies in signatures and the Commissioner's report indicating the first defendant's inability to provide evidence.5. The petitioner expressed willingness to mark documents for examination by the husband of the first defendant but objected to marking documents related to the second defendant. The trial Court found no reason to interfere with its decision based on the arguments presented.6. The respondent raised objections to the suit in 2014, highlighting variations in signatures and supporting the trial Court's decision based on the discrepancies observed in the documents filed by the petitioner.7. The civil revision petition was ultimately dismissed based on the observations and arguments presented by both parties, affirming the trial Court's decision regarding the acceptance of additional documents and the dismissal of the petition.
TaxTMI 