The court affirmed that defendants with a common defense can provide evidence sequentially without violating procedural rules, emphasizing the quality of evidence over quantity.

ORDER :

B.S. BHANUMATHI, J.

This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the order, dated 17.05.2024, dismissing I.A.No.800 of 2023 in O.S.No.62 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC to reject the chief affidavit of 1^st defendant (DW2).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The suit was filed for permanent injunction and the suit was opposed by the defendants by filing a written statement. During the course of trial, the 3^rd defendant was first examined as DW1 and in his evidence in chief examination, he stated that he is deposing for him and also for the other two defendants 1 & 2. Later, the 1^st defendant proposed to give evidence as DW2 and filed affidavit in evidence in chief examination stating that he is giving evidence on his behalf and also on behalf of the other defendants 2 & 3. As such, the plaintiff filed petition in I.A.No.800 of 2023 under Section 151 CPC to reject the affidavit of the 1^st defendant/DW2 on the ground that the 1^st defendant cannot again give evidence on his behalf and on behalf of DW1/defendant No.3 and such a course is unknown to law.

4. The petition was opposed by filing counter of the respondents/ defendants stating that all the defendants have common defence and initially, the defendant No.3 was examined as DW1 and exhibits B1 to B8 were marked and he deposed on behalf of the other defendants as well and that to corroborate the evidence of DW1, the 1^st defendant would like to give evidence as DW2, and therefore, there is no substance in the petition and that it was intended only to protract the matter.

5. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition since all the defendants have common defence and that merely because one defendant mentioned that he deposed on behalf of the other defendants also, it is not a bar for the other defendants to give evidence and no injustice would be caused to the plaintiff.

6. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed.

7. Before this Court, the same kind of arguments were advanced by both the parties as before the trial Court.

8. A fact can be proved by examining any witness or filing a document. The manner of proving a fact is governed by the Evidence Act, 1872 or the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, as the case may be. A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matter before it, the Court, either believes it to exist, or consider its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. (Section 3 Evidence Act, 1872= Section 2 of BSA, 2023)

9. So, whether a fact is proved or not depends on the quality but not quantity of evidence. It depends on the trustworthiness of evidence. A fact can be proved by examining/filing one or more witness(es)/ document(s). So the number of witness(es) to be examined is nowhere prescribed. Evidence of even a single witness is sufficient, provided trustworthy, to prove a fact. But evidence of a witness, on corroboration by evidence of other witness(es), renders more believable. Therefore, though corroboration is not required as a matter of law, more than one witness are usually examined as a matter of practice to ensure quality of evidence by eliminating doubt to meet the standard of a prudent man. It cannot be said, therefore, that since the 3^rd defendant gave evidence on behalf of the other defendants also, other defendant(s) can not given evidence.

10. Insofar as serial order of witnesses is concerned, Order XVIII, rules 1, 3 and 3A CPC provide guidance and they are excerpted hereunder:-

1. Right to begin The plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that either in point of law or on some additional facts alleged by the defendant the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief which he seeks, in which case the d