clr/1966/1966_1_6.pdf

1966 Jan H [/IMA AlMDROMAt HI Ρ, T R I A N I Μ \\ I 11)1s & JoMi'iiinis JJ I A N D R O M A C H I l O A N N O U HJISAVVA A N D 4 OTHHRS, lOANNOU HJISAVVA Appellan is-Plaintiffs, & 4 OlIHRS η ANDKI AS A N D K I AS I'ANAYIOIOU, Ι'ΛΝΑΊΙΟΗΗ, Respondent-Defendant (Cm/ I'lihinc Appad • idioiunnunt of appeal \ppeal \'o 4S|6) ipplnatiott tot ad- joittnnient of an appeal because of the absence of appellants— Pie seine of appellants would not be of am· help to Court because points mvohed Adtotittunent more οι less legal -Appluation of appeal tefused Sec inidei " Practice " aboie Practice Ippeal -I re\h eadciucippltcation to Coitit of Appeal for Iresh e\tden<e Requirements jor χι anting lea\e nut fulfilled (otitt not satisfied that proposed evidence toidd not hene Ineu uddtucd at the trial Court hud reasonable ^ddfjeme hem e\tra\id Iresh c\tdena', \en hkcli would not hint hmi udnussihU In /nal Cotut if tendeied Ipphtcittoii lefuscd. Lxidcue Irish e\iden<e -See uudei Pun lice" abo\e \pi>liciitiuii. Application loi leave to adduce liesh evidence on appeal and foi the adjournment o\' the heaiing of an appeal against Liu. judgment of the Distuct Couil of I imassol (Siavnnakis D J ) dated the 17th Febiuaiy, 1965 (Action No 2222/59) wheieby plaintiffs* claim foi a declaiation, inlet aha, that land, plot No 422, Sheet/Plan 58/7, is the exclusive pioperly of plaintiffs by way of dowiy from I heir father, long posses­ sion, inhentanee and other lawful means, was dismissed (ι loiiunttis, loi the appellants ./ /' Pohtmifts, loi the icspondenl 'The judgment of the Coin ι was delivered by /χκΐΛ, Ρ 'There are two applications T h e one, the application loi - befoic us todav adjournment, we aic of 6 the opinion that the presence of the appellants, the clients of Counsel, will not be of any help to Counsel because the points involved are more or less legal points. Therefore, the application for adjournment is dismissed ,96fi dn _ ^.NDROMACI-. IOANNOL HJISAWV Λ Coming to the application to adduce fresh evidence, the requirements for granting leave to adduce fresh evidence have not been fulfilled In the first place the Court is not satisfied that the proposed evidence, for what it is worth, could not have been adduced at the trial had reasonable diligence been exercised , and, the nature of the fresh evidence, as has been explained to us, very likely would not have been admissible if it v\as tendered Wc, therefore, dismiss ihis application as well, and we call on the Counsel for the appellant to addiess us on the appeal Mr Tornant'ts' After the dismissal of the application and since my client is not here, I would like to advise him not to pioceed accoidingly COURI You would like to abandon the appeal'' Why is she not hcic? Λ//. Tonuirt'ti.s . The husband was knocked down by a car and the wile is sick Her sister came and told me the dav, be­ fore that she was sick in bed COOK ι If you wish to make it a point, a medical c e m I'icalc should have been piodueed. If you wanted to keep to the point that she is ill and therefore cannot attend and her presence is indispensable for the prosecution of the appeal, then you have to produce medical evidence as usual Mi. Potunutis • My client informs me that she is not ill Mi loitiantis . They are illiterate people and the sister only came yesterday afternoon, there was no time, and last night they telephoned that she was ill COURI . That was the last time you saw them after the affidavit 7 Mr, Tarnarttis : Yes Your Honour. First her husband was knocked down by a car and now these last .two or three days the wife became ill from flu, I understand. COURI • The appellant in this case not proceeding with the appeal the case is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed with cosl.s. 7 4 OTHLRS " \NDRFA'· Ρ\ΝΆΊϊΟΤ