Judgment :-

Thomas, J.

It is proper for cue party in a suit to summon the counsel of his opposite party as a witness? No doubt, any person can be cited as a witness if he has the testimonial competence envisaged in S.118 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But should not the court be greatly circumspect when the counsel engaged by the opposite side is sought to be summoned as a witness? That question needs consideration now.

2. This appeal arises from one of the two suits sprouted from a shunted matrimonial proposal. The proposal for the marriage registered fast progress initially and reached upto publication of "banns" in the church/but then it went away as one of the parties backed out from it. The bride's party filed a suit in the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara for damages alleging fraud and deception. The other side (bride-groom's party) also filed a suit at Kuzhithura (in Tamil Nadu) for damages alleging breach of promise. Further details of the rival claims are unnecessary for this appeal and hence we omit them. However, bare facts just sufficient for this appeal are the following: The suit. in Neyyattinkara Court reached-almost the final stage, as both sides closed their evidence. But appella