1956 (1) TMI 29

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For Respondent: T. Anantababu and P. Rarnachandra Rao, Advs. JUDGMENT K. Umamaheswaram, J. 1. This is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla refusing to decide the question of the admissibility of certain documents which were tendered in the course of the cross-examination of P. W. 23. The learned Subordinate Judge took the view that there is a practice o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts need not be gone into at the time when an objection is raised by the parties. What appears from that decision is that the Subordinate Judge without admitting the document, left the question of its admissibility open for arguments at the end. No arguments seem to have been addressed before the Bench in that case that the procedure adopted by the Subordinate Judge was wrong. There is no expres....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....missibility of the documents objected to by the Petitioner. He ought not to have marked them tentatively and reserved the question of the admissibility for arguments at the final stage. 5. In Venkata Narasayyamma v. Venkata Rattamma, 1955 AP WR 87 (C) I held that ant order of this description is liable to be set aside in revision. T therefore interferes under the provisions' of Section 115 ....