<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1956 (1) TMI 29 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198382</link>
    <description>When an objection to the admissibility of a document is raised during cross-examination, including objections based on stamping or registration, the court must decide it immediately and cannot merely tentatively mark the document and defer the issue until final arguments. A procedural order postponing that determination is an error and is amenable to correction in revision. The material states that the earlier authority did not approve deferral of the objection, while the later authority required an immediate decision. The result was that the revision was allowed and the trial court was directed to decide admissibility forthwith and proceed with the suit expeditiously.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 11:58:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506621" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (1) TMI 29 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198382</link>
      <description>When an objection to the admissibility of a document is raised during cross-examination, including objections based on stamping or registration, the court must decide it immediately and cannot merely tentatively mark the document and defer the issue until final arguments. A procedural order postponing that determination is an error and is amenable to correction in revision. The material states that the earlier authority did not approve deferral of the objection, while the later authority required an immediate decision. The result was that the revision was allowed and the trial court was directed to decide admissibility forthwith and proceed with the suit expeditiously.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198382</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>