In a partition suit application, the High Court of Judicature at Madras rejected the applicant/plaintiff's prayer to summon the third respondent/defendant as a witness. The court held that a party cannot be compelled to appear as a witness or elicit information for the opposite party.
Application to summon the third defendant as a witness was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
A.No.5555 of 2017 IN C.S.No.490 of 2006
G.Prakash, K-91, Ground Floor, 14th Street, K Block, Anna Nagar East, Chennai 600 102 ...Applicant/Plaintiff
-vs-
...Respondents/Defendants
Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to summon the 3rd defendant-Shri.G.Kannadasan residing at No.35/77, Padvattamman Koil Street, Kosapet, Chennai 600 012 as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff.
This Application coming on this day before this court for hearing the court made the following order:-
2
This Application has been filed by the plaintiff to
summon the 3rd defendant to depose before this Court.
the defendants have closed their evidence. It is thereafter, the plaintiff has now come forward with this application seeking the following prayer:
“This Hon'ble Court should not be pleased to summon the 3rd defendant Shri.G.Kannadasan residing at No.35/77, Padavattamman Koil Street, Kosapet, Chennai – 600 012 as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff? ”
3
to summon the defendant to be examined as his witness. Of course, considering the provisions under Order 16 Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code, learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh has held that there is no legal impediment to the plaintiff to summon the defendant as witness.
“4. The conclusion reached by the
learned Single Judge and in our opinion, rightly so, is that a party cannot be compelled to appear as a witness either on his own or on the motion of the other plaintiff has to prove it's own case and cannot compel an unwilling party to depose or elicit information from him. The provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17 of C.P.C have been rightly appreciated to conclude that the purpose is not to call a witness for the purpose of re-cross examination and that too at the sweet will of the opposite party.”
4
OSA.Nos.246 and 247 of 2014 was rendered after referring the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham, reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1008. It is therefore clear that this Court had held that a party to proceeding cannot be compelled to give evidence that too at the instance of the opposite party.
8.Hence, this Application is dismissed.
13.12.2017
//Certified to be a true copy// Dated this the day of 2018
JJ 04/05.2018 COURT OFFICER
From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a plaintiff can summon a defendant who is a party to the same suit to appear as a witness.
Whether the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC compel a party to give evidence at the instance of the opposite party.
Whether an application to summon a defendant as a witness in a partition suit should be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Andhra Pradesh High CourtDistinguished¶22
2005 AIHC 1059
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Lala PanchamReferred¶30
AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1008 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
G. Prakash
G. Kannadasan
K. Chandramathi
R. Subramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
