Back
A.P.MISRA, DORAISWAMY RAJU
N. C. KALADHARAN – Appellant
Versus
KAMALESHWARAN – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves the examination of witnesses in a civil suit, specifically regarding the order of examining the appellant and witnesses, and the formal proof of a will under the Evidence Act [judgement_subject].
The High Court initially held that the trial court's practice of calling upon parties before their witnesses is a normal and healthy procedure. It did not find fault with this approach but rejected the appellant's contention that Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act require formal proof of a will before other evidence can be examined [para 3].
The appellant contended that he did not wish to appear as a witness, rendering the question of examining him first moot. Consequently, the court decided to proceed with examining the evidence in accordance with Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act [para 4].
The appeal was disposed of with the court modifying the impugned order, noting that since the appellant did not desire to testify, the issue of the order of examination was no longer relevant. Costs were awarded to both parties (!) [1000383040001][1000383040002][1000383040003].
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
( 1 ) LEAVE granted.
( 2 ) HEARD counsel for the parties.
( 3 ) THE main question which is addressed to this Court against the impugned order is, whether the High Court was right to insist on the examination of the appellant first before the examination of the witnesses to formally prove the will. The High Court relying on the provisions of Order 18 Rule 3-A CPC observed that normal and healthy practice which is adopted by the trial court is, to call upon the parties to the suit before their witnesses are examined. The High Court did not find any fault in such approach, hence rejected the case of the appellant. The contention for the appellant before the high Court was that Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act, require formal proof of a will and only when the will is properly proved, he can lead his evidence, in case he is examined first it will not be possible for him or for the court to use the will as evidence in the course of his examination. This submission of the appellant was rejected by the High Court.
( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has stated before us, which is also recorded earlier in our order dated 14-7-2000, that the appellant does not desire to appear as a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
