This civil revision petition challenged the dismissal of an application to reopen a specific performance suit to summon a contesting defendant as an attesting witness. The High Court held that a plaintiff cannot compel a contesting defendant to testify.
Petitioner permitted to file a fresh application if permissible under law.
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
DATED: 27.10.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR
CRP.PD.No.3914 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No.18302 of 2017
S.Suresh ..Petitioner
Vs.
1.K.Vijayalakshmi
2.R.Kaliappan ..Respondents
PRAYER :
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Fair and Final Order dated 03.08.2017 in I.A.No.719 of 2017 in O.S.No.463 of 2014 passed by
the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Suresh Sakthimurugan
For respondents : Mr.P.Valliappan
ORDER
According to the petitioner, the petitioner has filed a suit
2
in O.S.No.463 of 2014 for specific performance against the respondent herein. Trial has been commenced and the evidence was concluded on both sides and posted for arguments. At this stage, the petitioner has filed the present application in I.A.No.719 of 2017 to re-open the suit for further examination of the attesting witnesses in the suit. The said application was dismissed. Hence,
the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition before this
Court.
learned counsel for the caveators / respondents and perused the materials available on record.
3
application by stating that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner to produce further evidence and apart from that batta memo filed along with the petition shows that the petitioner is seeking to summon the second defendant as a witness on his side. Therefore, the said order and the contention of the petitioner would shows that the petitioner seeks to re-open the suit for examining the second defendant as attesting witness. It is clear that in the light of the decisions of this Court in the case of D.Babu Vs. K.A.Dinachandran and Others reported in 2013 (1) CTC 881 and in the case of V.L.Ramanathan Vs. Salem Nagarathar Sangam reported in 2014 (4) LW 174 , wherein it has been held that "the plaintiff cannot summon a contesting defendant and compel him to give evidence on his side. Even if the second defendant's evidence is relevant and necessary, he being a defendant contesting along with his wife namely the first defendant, the plaintiff may at the best demand that adverse inference be drawn against the defendants" . Hence, in the light of the above said reasons, there is no error or illegality in the order passed by the trial court and the same is confirmed.
dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to file a fresh
4
D.KRISHNAKUMAR. J,
lok
application, if permissible under law. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
27.10.2017
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
lok
To
The III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore.
CRP.PD.No.3914 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No.18302 of 2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the petitioner's application to summon a contesting defendant as an attesting witness in a specific performance suit.
Whether a plaintiff can compel a contesting defendant to give evidence on the plaintiff's side.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
D. Babu Vs. K.A. Dinachandran and OthersDistinguished¶26
2013 (1) CTC 881
V.L. Ramanathan Vs. Salem Nagarathar SangamDistinguished¶26
2014 (4) LW 174
S. Suresh
K. Vijayalakshmi
R. Kaliappan
D. KRISHNAKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
