Counsel Has Professional Duty To Exercise The Right Of Re-Examination : Madras High Court
Case: B Amudha v K Rajendran and Ors
Coram: Justice G.R Swaminathan
Case No.: S.A (MD) 80 of 2010
Court Observation:
Made this observation that the sense and meaning of the answers given by the appellant in trial must h ave been brought out by re-examination by the counsel. “This is a classic instance of the ambulatory nature of the onus of proof. There is a game involving passing the ball and when the music stops the person holding the ball is declared out. The ambulatory nature of onus of proof plays out likewise. The burden keeps shifting back and forth. In this case, the onus shifted from the appellant to the plaintiff who passed it back to her. If only re-examination had been done and the appellant had clarified that she became aware of the facts relating to the agreement only during trial and had reiterated her lack of knowledge about the prior contract before she paid her money to the first defendant, the burden would have once again shifted to the plaintiff.”
Previous Posts
Kerala High Court Asks State to Revisit the Procedure for Search & Seizure in
Abkari Cases
Defense On Merits Is Not To Be Considered At Stage Of Framing
Of Charge And/Or At The Stage Of Discharge Application Download Judgement
Keywords
Right Of Re-Examination, Professional Duty, Madras High Court
