2012 (10) TMI 1253

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 for recovery of amount on the strength of a promissory note, said to have been executed by late Rama Mohana Rao, the father of the petitioner, The suit was decreed and after the decree became final, the 1st respondent filed EP No. 107 of 2007 against the petitioner and respondent No. 2, his mother, and respondents 3 and 4, his sisters. In the course of trial of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . 107 of 2007 filed by the 1st respondent. 3. Section 33 of the Act deals with this aspect. The executing Court has extracted the provision and has undertaken discussion with reference to it. The evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, is treated as relevant, for the purpose of proving the truth of the facts stated in subsequent judicial proceedings, subject to certain conditions. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... each of these facets. 4. In the instant case, what is sought to be marked is the deposition of the petitioner, in OS No. 60 of 2003. He is very much alive, and available to be examined and cross-examined. Therefore, the conditions incorporated in Section 33 of the Act, themselves bar the marking of the deposition of the petitioner recorded in another suit. Added to that the 1st respondent faile .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X