Civil Revision Petition against an order allowing defendants to examine witnesses. The High Court of Madras held that identifying a deceased attesting witness's signature by examining his son was sustainable and dismissing the revision petition.
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed; connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed; no costs.
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.
C.R.P. (PD) No. 1025 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.10.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
C.R.P. (PD) No. 1025 of 2019
and
C.M.P. Nos. 6770 and 22790 of 2019
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final order dated 30.01.2019 in I.A. No. 1 of 2019 in O.S. No. 374 of 2015 on the file of II Additional Sub Court, Erode.
For Petitioners : Mr. S. Kaithamalaikumaran For Respondents : Mr. R. Thiagarajan for Caveator
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and
final order passed in I.A. No. 1 of 2019 in O.S. No. 374 of 2015 on the
file of II Additional Sub Court, Erode, by order dated 30.01.2019.
1/6
C.R.P. (PD) No. 1025 of 2019
through the impugned order, aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioners who were the plaintiffs in the suit and were the respondents
in the said IA, preferred the present revision petition.
appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents.
the plaintiffs, where a Will had come up for adjudication and in order to
prove the Will on the side of the defendants, they wanted to examine
the attesting witnesses of the Will, where one Nallamuthu stood as one of the attesting witnesses. Therefore only to identify the signature of
the said Nallamuthu in the said Will, his son one N. Prabu had to be
2/6
C.R.P. (PD) No. 1025 of 2019
examined on behalf of the defendants, only for the said main purpose, the said application seems to have been filed, as projected by the learned counsel for the respondents.
appearing for the revision petitioners that, already DW1, who is one of
the attesting witnesses, has been examined, therefore the present
proposal to examine N. Prabhu another attesting witness is no more required, therefore on that ground, he is opposing the said impugned order.
3/6
C.R.P. (PD) No. 1025 of 2019
defendants to examine these witnesses, particularly, the said N. Prabhu is concerned, it is fully justifiable and therefore, it does not require any interference from this Court.
4/6
C.R.P. (PD) No. 1025 of 2019
and perused the materials placed before this Court.
the respondents herein, the said N. Prabhu admittedly being the son of the late Nallamuthu, who stood as attesting witness of the Will in question and therefore only to identify the signature of the said Nallamuthu, being only attesting witness of the Will, the respondents side wanted to examine his son N. Prabhu. Therefore the said plea made on behalf of the respondents / defendants before the Court below was allowed, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is a sustainable one.
the respondents that, the permission allowing the third defendant to be the witnesses on behalf of the defendants is concerned, such gesture, in
the eye of law, is not required to be made by the Court below, as such right is always vested with the parties with the suit.
5/6
C.R.P. (PD) No. 1025 of 2019
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
vji
absolutely there can be no plausible reason to oppose the said reason given by the Court below to examine the said witnesses on behalf of the
defendants / respondents.
C.R.P. (PD) No. 1025 of 2019 and
6/6
C.R.P. (PD) No. 1025 of 2019
C.M.P. Nos. 22790 and 6770 of 2019
7/6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial Court rightly allowed the defendants to examine their proposed witnesses, including the son of a deceased attesting witness, to identify signatures under the Civil Procedure Code.
Whether a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable against an order allowing the examination of witnesses deposed by a party on its own side.
Whether the lower Court's refusal to conduct a fresh hearing on the matter while maintaining the impugned order was correct in law.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Malliga
Samuvel
Indirani
Prema Thangam
Meckanz
R. Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
