DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed against the order dated 10-9-1999 in IA No. 870 of 1999 in OS No. 885 of 1995 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff is the revision petitioner. She filed the petition in IA No,870 of 1999 under Section 151 CPC requesting the trial Court to permit her husband to adduce evidence in the suit on her behalf in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience. The said petition was opposed by the respondent-defendant. The trial Court dismissed the said application by order-dated 10-9-1999. Aggrieved by that order, this revision petition is filed.

( 3 ) AS per Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in all civil proceedings the parties to the suit, and the husband or wife of any party to the suit, shall be competent witnesses. In the present case, the plaintiff wants to examine her husband as a witness on her behalf. He is a GPA holder of the plaintiff. Even if he is not a GPA holder of the plaintiff, he is a competent witness to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff.

( 4 ) IN the impugned order, the learned Junior Civil Judge placed reliance on a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in K. Bharathi v. Labour Officer, 1999 (3) ALT 428. In that decision, it was held that a power of attorney holder of a party is not entitled to appear as a witness on behalf of the party in the capacity of that party. It was further held that the party cannot stay back without entering into the witness box and subjecting herself to cross-examination. It was also held that if for any reason the party cannot give evidence, the party can file a petition to record the evidence of the party on commission.

( 5 ) THE suit is not filed by the plaintiff represented by her GPA holder. The plaintiff wants to examine her husband as a witness. The learned Counsel for the respondent invited the attention of this Court to the averment in the affidavit filed by the petitioner. She stated in her affidavit that she is well acquainted with the facts of the case. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent, as the plaintiff is well aware of the facts of the case, she should appear as witness and give evidence and she cannot be permitted to stay back and examine her husband as a witness. In my considered opinion, if any person having knowledge of the facts of the case and especially a party with full knowledge of the facts of the case fails to appear and give evidence in support of his case, it is a circumstance to be taken note of by the Court while appreciating the evidence adduced by both the parties and dispose of the suit finally. The Court is competent to draw art adverse inference against the party concerned for not appearing before the Court and for not giving evidence without any reasonable or justifiable cause. That is a different aspect.

( 6 ) IN my considered opinion, just because the plaintiff is aware of the full facts of the case, the plaintiff cannot be prevented from examining her husband or any other person as a witness on her behalf. After the parties adduce evidence, any party to the suit is at liberty to request the Court to draw adverse inference, if a competent witness is not examined by any of the parties in the suit without valid or justifiable ground. In my considered opinion, there is no need for any party to file a petition and seek permission of the Court to examine a particular witness in a case.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent invited the attention of this Court to a decision of the Supreme Court in Kundan Lal v. Custodian, Evacuee property, AIR 1961 SC 1316. In that decision, the Supreme Court made a reference to a judgment of the Privy Council in Murugesam Pillai v. Gnan Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi, AIR 1917 PC 6. The Privy Council held that a practice has grown up in Indian procedure of those in possession of important documents or information lying, by trusting to the abstract doctri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document