Gladys Singh @ Mabel Gladys Singh Vs G. Felista Rani — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Gladys Singh @ Mabel Gladys Singh Vs G. Felista Rani — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed, the connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.No.24003 of 2024) is closed, and there is no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Maintainability: whether a petition/revision of this kind is maintainable, i.e., whether the revisional court can be moved to prevent a party from letting in evidence through a witness on that party's own side. +1 more

Court's answer

A petition of this kind is not maintainable; the revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to seek indulgence to prevent a party from letting in evidence through a witness on that party's side.

Ratio / Principle

Even assuming D.W.2 was present in court while D.W.1 was being examined, that circumstance is not a ground to prevent him from being examined as a witness.

Key takeaways

Mere presence of one of the witnesses will not have any impact; whether a witness's presence has tilted the evidentiary value of another witness is a matter to be seen only by the trial court, as the master in appreciation of evidence, while appreciating the evidence taking into account all circumstances.ratio¶26
It is well open to the objecting party to contradict D.W.2's evidence before the trial court and to bring out the circumstances of his presence in cross-examination; without following that procedure, the party cannot, as a matter of right, prevent the evidence put forth by the other side.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Sathish Kumar, J.) in a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 18.09.2024 of the XV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.No.5721 of 2019, rejecting an un-numbered memo dated 18.07.2024 by which it was sought to reject the evidence of D.W.2 on the ground that he was present in court when D.W.1 (his wife) was examined. Held: such a petition is itself not maintainable, and the revision cannot seek the Court's indulgence to prevent a party from letting in evidence on his side; even assuming D.W.2 was present while D.W.1 was examined, that is not a ground to prevent him being examined as a witness. Mere presence of a witness will not have any impact; whether his presence tilted the evidentiary value of any witness has to be seen only by the trial court, the master in appreciation of evidence, while appreciating the evidence taking into account all circumstances. The proper course for the objecting party is to contradict D.W.2's evidence before the trial court and bring out the circumstances of his presence in cross-examination; without following that procedure, the party cannot as of right prevent the evidence put forth by the other side. Civil Revision Petition dismissed; connected C.M.P.No.24003 of 2024 closed; no order as to costs.

C.R.P.No.4318 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 06.01.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

C.R.P.No.4318 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.24003 of 2024

Gladys Singh @ Mabel Gladys Singh 2. E.Kingsles Roy Singh ... Petitioners Vs.

E.Felista Rani ... Respondent

Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 18.09.2024 passed on un-numbered memo dated 18.07.2024 in O.S.No.5721 of 2019 on the file of the XV Additional City Civil Court at Chennai.

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Raghavachari Mr.A.G.Vedavikas For Respondent : Mr.A.Veerasamy

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order dated 18.09.2024, rejecting

the memo filed by the petitioners to reject the evidence of D.W.2, the present revision petition has been filed.

Page 1 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.4318 of 2024

The memo has been filed by the plaintiff contending that

D.W.2 on the side of the defendant, is none other than the husband of D.W.1 and he was present when D.W.1 was examined. Therefore, his evidence cannot be received. The memo filed by the plaintiff has been rejected. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioners submits that when D.W.1 was examined, her husband was very much present in the Court. Therefore, his evidence cannot be taken.

This Court is of the view that this kind of petition itself cannot be maintainable and the revision petition cannot seek indulgence of this Court to prevent the evidence being let in by the party on his side. Even assuming that D.W.2 was present while examining D.W.1 in the Court of law, that cannot be a ground to prevent his witness being examined. It is for the trial Court, being the master in appreciation of evidence, to appreciate

Page 2 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.4318 of 2024

the evidence taking into all circumstances. Mere presence of one of the

witnesses, will not have any impact. Whether his presence has tilted the evidentiary value of any witness or not, has to be seen only by trial court while appreciating the evidence.

In the given case, the suit itself is filed for annulling the document, that too after the death of the executant. Therefore, merely D.W.1, was present in one of the hearings and merely because D.W.1 admitted his presence, it cannot be said that his evidence to be thrown out outrightly. It is well open to the plaintiff to contradict D.W.2's evidence before the trial Court and he can very well bring the circumstances in the cross-examination about his presence. Without following the said procedure, as a matter of right, they cannot prevent the evidence putforth by the party.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Page 3 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.4318 of 2024

06.01.2025

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order rts

Page 4 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.4318 of 2024

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

rts

To The XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai

C.R.P.No.4318 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.24003 of 2024

06.01.2025

Page 5 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis