M/S.Sri Mahalakshmi Metal v. Mr.K.Anand Chakravarthy, Proprietor

Application No.1536 of 2019 in C.S.No.61 of 2012 Application No.1536 of 2019 in C.S.No.61 of 2012 Krishnan Ramasamy, J., It is submitted that the application filed to direct the plaintiff to file the additional documents.

Sl.No Date Document Remarks 1.

05.12.2005 Form 32 filed by the plaintiff company along with receipt Xerox 2.

01.10.2011 Cheque No.041136 issued by the 1st defendant Xerox 3.

03.10.2011 Return Memo by the Bank returning the Cheque No.041136 issued by the 1st defendant Xerox 4.

01.11.2011 Board Resolution by the Plaintiff company Xerox

2. The applicant submits that the above three documents are statutory documents and the fourth one is only the Board Resolution. By marking this documents, the plaintiff is not intend to alter the pleadings in the plaint. Though, the counsel appearing for the respondent made strong objections, the counsel is agreed that the said documents if at all, permitted to be marked same may be marked subject to the proof and relevance. Further, the respondent seeks permission of this Court to raise all the objections, at the time of cross examination of PW-1. Krishnan Ramasamy, J., http://www.judis.nic.in

Application No.1536 of 2019 in C.S.No.61 of 2012 Pns

3. Heard the both sides and also perused the averments in the affidavit. The documents to be filed by the applicant are Form 32, with regard to the appointment of the Directors, cheque along with the return memo by the Bank and Board Resolution of plaintiff company, to authorise its Managing Director, Mr.Anil Ojha, to file and represent the suit.

4. Therefore, the applicant is permitted to mark all the four additional documents filed herein, subject to the proof and relevancy. Further, this Court permit the respondent herein to submit all the objections at the time of cross-examination of PW-1. Accordingly, this application is allowed.

28.08.2019 Pns Application No.1536 of 2019 in C.S.No.61 of 2019 http://www.judis.nic.in