Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Vijaykumar A.Patil
M. Sharadamma, W/o Late Sri. Nagaraj M.K. – Appellant
Versus
Kiran Kumar, S/o Late Sri. Premchand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition challenging the trial court's order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. opposing parties may not compel each other to testify. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. evidence presented must justify summoning co-parties. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's discretion to summon witnesses based on case necessity. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 5. right to summon witnesses must be based on specific reasons. (Para 8) |
| 6. petition dismissed; trial court's discretion upheld. (Para 10 , 11) |
ORDER :
Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 12.09.2019 passed on I.A.No.15 in O.S.No.80/2017 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere.
2. Heard.
3. Sri.Deepak S. Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Trial Court committed a grave error in allowing an application filed by the respondent No.1 to summon the witness. The Trial Court allowed the application to summon the petitioner No.1-defendant No.1 as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent No.1, which is contrary to the settled principles of law. It is submitted that the plaintiff- respondent No.1 has to prove the case based on his pleadings and evidence and he cannot compel the petitioner No.1- defe
A party to a suit cannot compel the opponent to testify on their behalf as a matter of right; the trial court has discretion to allow such summons based on the necessity and context of the case.
Parties in a civil suit can be summoned as witnesses under the CPC, but compelling testimony without sufficient cause violates procedural norms.
A party to a suit can call another party as a witness under specific circumstances, but must provide a valid justification for doing so according to procedural rules.
A party can summon an opposite party for cross-examination under CPC, and adverse inferences may be drawn if a party fails to testify, reinforcing the necessity of cross-examination.
Summoning a defendant as the plaintiff's witness is discouraged and should occur only in exceptional circumstances; the plaintiff must bear the burden of proof.
Order XVIII Rule 3A CPC mandates initial party testimony but permits later examination for recorded reasons even if sought subsequently, exercised judicially in peculiar facts to balance justice and ....
Point of law: In any case, it is settled legal position that no litigant can be denied the opportunity to prove his case, unless it is clear that presence of such witnesses is not necessary at all. T....
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
