Point of Law: Section 120 of Indian Evidence Act permits that both husband and wife can be competent witness for each other. If at all present petitioner wants to support the case of the plaintiff by tendering evidence, there can be no bar or there can be no order preventing him from tendering evidence. As a matter of fact, he can tender evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, with respect to the facts are known to him.

JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and the decreetal order dated 11.02.2020 made in I.A.No. 1 of 2019 in O.S.No. 125 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge at Chengalpattu.

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 11.02.2020 in I.A. No. 1 of 2019 in O.S.No. 125 of 2016, which suit is pending before the Principal Sub Court at Chengalpattu.

2. The suit had been filed by Mrs. P.C. Sasimala, wife of Mr.G.Victor Jesudoss against two defendants (1) Mr. G.Gnanabarathidasan and (2) Mrs. Pandiselvi. The relief sought in the suit was for a declaration that the Power of Attorney dated 25.10.1996 executed by the husband of the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant is null and void and for a declaration that an agreement of sale deed dated 25.10.1996 also executed by the first defendant as power agent of the husband of the plaintiff in favour of the second defendant is null and void and for a declaration that a sale deed dated 22.10.1999 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant is null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the second defendant from dealing with the said property and for costs.

3. Trial has not yet commenced. It may therefore not be proper on my part to go deeply into the merits of the claims raised in the plaint.

4. At any rate, the Interlocutory Application which is now the bone of contention in I.A.No. 1 of 2019, had been filed by the plaintiff, seeking to implead the husband as co-plaintiff along with the plaintiff.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it had been stated that though the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property in view of the registered settlement deed executed by the present revision petitioner, the entire facts of the case revolves around his acts of omission and commission and that the suit cannot be adjudicated in his absence. It is also stated that he is a proper and necessary party to the suit.

6. A counter had been filed questioning his locus and stating that there is no necessity for the present petitioner to be impleaded as co-plaintiff. It had been stated that the said application itself had been filed in connivance with his wife and the plaintiff had successfully dragged on the case for the past three years without getting ready for enquiry or gracing the witness box.

7. This Application came up for consideration before the learned Principal Sub Judge at Chengalpattu on 11.02.2020 and the learned Judge, had stated that the petitioner had come forward with the petition after a long period and does not have a right to be added as a plaintiff. It had been contended that the arguments put forth are not legally acceptable and therefore, there was no necessity to implead him as co-plaintiff and the petition was dismissed. This order is now under challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition.

8. Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act permits that both husband and wife can be competent witness for each other. If at all the present petitioner wants to support the case of the plaintiff by tendering evidence, there can be no bar or there can be no order preventing him from tendering evidence. As a matter of fact, he can tender evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, with respect to the facts are known to him.

9. I wonder at the advantage that would accrue to the present petitioner by categorising him as a second plaintiff in the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner however insisted that it would only be appropriate that he is also added as a plaintiff. The learned counsel for the respondents contested that statement.

10. The suit has been pending for the past five years. There has been no effective progress in the suit. If at all the petitioner wants to lead evidence on behalf of the plaintiff which may be one of the reasons why the plaintiff had not grazed the witness box and tendered evidence