The main legal point established in the judgment is that oral evidence should not be struck off at the initial stage and should be considered on merits at the time of final hearing, in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act and previous judgments.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order passed in O.S.No.982 of 2012 dated 11.02.2020 on the file learned I Additional District Munsif Court, Trichy, expunging the portion of oral evidence of P.W.1 -A.K.Abdul Kareem, and allow the present civil revision petition.)

1. The revision petition is filed against the order passed by the learned I Additional District Munsif Court, Trichy in O.S.No.982 of 2012 dated 11.02.2020.

2. According to the revision petitioner, the order of the trial Court expunging the portion of oral evidence of P.W.1 is illegal. The revision petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has only stated that his grandfather was inducted as a tenant by one Kajamain Rawthar and he was a tenant under Kaja Kamaludeen. However, the trial Court has erroneously held that the petitioner has admitted that he was in dural relation ship and erroneously held that the petitioner is a tenant under Kaja Kamaludeen and therefore, he cannot put questions about non-joinder of the legal heirs of Kajamain Rowther is fatal. He would further submit that the specific stand taken by the petitioner is that the said Kaja Moihdeen has no locus standi to file the suit without impleading the legal heirs of the Kajamian Rowthar that the respondents 1 to 4 cannot maintain the suit without impleading other co-owners. The trial Court erred in holding that the petitioner being a cultivating tenant, cannot raise the question relating to non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court expunging the portion of oral evidence of P.W.1 in O.S.No.1982 of 2012 is liable to be set aside.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that Section 138 of the Evidence Act, provides that cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the Witness testified on his examination-in-chief. Section 146 of the Evidence Act, provides that it shall be lawful for the cross-examining Counsel, to put questions to discover who the Witness is and what is his position in life or to shake his credit, by injuring his character, although the answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly to criminate him or might expose or tend directly or indirectly to expose him to a penalty of forfeiture. Therefore, it was definitely open to the Counsel to ask the question regarding the character of the Witnesses, while cross-examining the Witness [Ref: 2018(2 )CTC 620].

4. His further contention is that both oral and documentary evidence should not be shut down at the initial stage itself. The same has to be taken on file subject to objections. To support his contention he has relied upon the following decision in [Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs State of Gujarat and another reported in 2002-1-LW (Crl) in which it is held:

''14.When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objections before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.)

15. The above procedure, if followed, will have two advantages. First is that the time in the trial court, during evidence-taking stage, would not be wasted on account of rais