The admissibility of evidence is based on the relevance to the facts in issue or the relevant facts, as per the Indian Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Case is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the fair and final order dated 07.08.2017 made in I.A.No. 687 of 2017 in O.S.No.182 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar.)

The plaintiff is the revision petitioner.

2. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction for two items of the suit schedule properties. Pending suit, the plaintiff had filed a list of witnesses as contemplated under Order 16 Rule 1 of C.P.C to be examined on his side.

3. The defendants filed I.A.No.535 of 2017 to reject the said list filed by the plaintiff on the ground that the proposed witnesses are no way connected with the dispute raised in the suit. After hearing both parties, the trial Judge allowed the said application on the ground that the plaintiff has not assigned any proper reason for examining each one of the witnesses. However, the plaintiff was granted liberty to file a fresh application explaining the reason for examination of each one the witnesses.

4. Pursuant to the said order, plaintiff filed I.A.No.687 of 2017 explaining certain reasons for examination of around 9 witnesses. The said application was resisted by the defendants on the ground that the proposed witnesses are in no way connected with the suit or dispute that has arisen between the parties. The learned trial Judge after detailed consideration of the contentions of either side dismissed the application by the plaintiff. As against the same, the plaintiff has filed the present revision petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has contended that in view of the order passed in I.A.No.535 of 2017, the plaintiff had filed a fresh application in I.A.No.687 of 2017 in which a detail explanation has been offered by the plaintiff for examination of 9 witnesses on his side. The learned counsel further contended that the learned trial Judge has passed the order in the present I.A.No.687 of 2017 which is quite contrary to the order passed in I.A.No.535 of 2017. He further contended that the list of witnesses originally presented by the plaintiff was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the proper reasons have not been assigned by the plaintiff for examination of the said witnesses. However, in the present application, reason/explanation has been offered by the plaintiff for examination of each one of the witnesses. The learned counsel further contended that the plaintiff alone can decide who should be examined as a witness on his side to prove his case. If any right is granted to the defendants to restrict or challenge the list of witnesses provided by the plaintiff, that would defeat the rights of the plaintiff. He further contended that in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, the entire burden is upon the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff has full liberty to examine all the proposed witnesses on his side, for which, the list was placed before the Court. He further contended that on every occasion, the defendants are attempting to restrict the witnesses who are going to depose on behalf of the plaintiff, in order to weaken the case of the plaintiff. He further contended that the additional witnesses will not put to any inconvenience or prejudice to any party. He further contended that the trial Court had erred in judging in relevancy of the witnesses even before they depose before the Court. Hence, he prayed for allowing the civil revision petition.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents had contended that the reasons/explanations offered by the plaintiff for examining the additional witnesses will clearly show that the said witnesses have no connection whatsoever with the present dispute in the suit. He further contended that the plaintiff is attempting to threaten the counsels who are appearing on the other side. He further contended that the proposed 8th witness namely Santhakumar is the husband of the Advocate wh