As it is an admitted fact that A. Natarajan failed in his attempt to come on record in the suit and that the order passed in this regard attained finality, the trail Court must necessarily bear this fact in mind. It would not be open to the said A.Natarajan to indirectly defeat the said order by enlarging the scope of the suit through his examination as a witness. In this regard, the trial Court must also be wary of A.Natarajan smuggling in his own case, in the capacity of a witness, as he is not a party to the litigation. Any documents sought to be marked by him in evidence would necessarily have to be subjected to detailed scrutiny with this aspect being borne in mind and it would be open to the plaintiffs to raise all such objections as may be available to them in law against the marking of any particular document. The trial Court is no doubt correct in holding that the plaintiffs cannot prevent the defendants from examining any witness of their choice but given the peculiar facts of the present case, the trial Court must exercise necessary care and caution to see that the earlier order passed by it refusing to implead the proposed witness, A.Natarajan, as a party to the suit, is not diluted or defeated by his examination as a witness.
