The court ruled that non-Tamil-speaking defendants may record evidence in English, ensuring the integrity of the judicial process and the essence of evidence is preserved.

ORDER :

Prayer : The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the decreetal order dated 04.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2022 in O.S.No.41 of 2016 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Vellore at Ranipet.

This Civil Revision Petition arises against an order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2022 in O.S.No.41 of 2016 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Vellore at Ranipet.

2. O.S.No.41 of 2016 is a suit which has been filed for recovery of money on the ground of latent defects in the drawbars supplied by the petitioner/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff.

3. The defendant is from Aurangabad which is in the state of Maharashtra. A detailed written statement had been filed and the matter stood posted for examination of the defendant. The defendant filed I.A.No.4 of 2022 seeking permission of the Court to file an additional proof affidavit and to tender evidence on that basis.

4. It transpires that this application was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff on the ground that the same was in English, whereas, the language of the Court is Tamil and therefore, the proof affidavit should also be filed only in the Tamil language. This objection seems to have been accepted by the learned Trial Judge who held that Order XVIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply if an application filed under the said provision is objected to by the opposing party. While dismissing the application, he held that for the sake of convenience of the defendant, the questions in the cross-examination would be put to the defendant in English and the recording will be made in Tamil following the translation methodology. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been presented before this Court.

5. Heard Mr.Neelakandan appearing for the petitioner and Ms.Sandhya Rangarasu appearing for the respondent.

6. Mr.Neelakandan would submit that the petitioner is totally ignorant of the Tamil language and can depose only in English. If the cross-examination takes place in Tamil, he would not be in a position to respond to the same. Apart from that, he would state that the suit being one for damages, where questions on intricate details of the design, etc., will be put to the witness, it is only reasonable that the cross-examination be conducted in the English language. At the time of translation, the essence of the deposition would be missed, and therefore, the evidence of the petitioner should be taken down by the learned Trial Judge in English.

7. Ms.Sandhya Rangarasu referring to the Order XVIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure would submit that as per Order XVIII Rule 9 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the evidence can be taken in English only if it is not objected to by the opposing pleader. Since there has been an opposition in this case, the law contained in Order XVIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be inapplicable, and hence, the order passed by the learned Trial Judge deserves to be upheld.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions on either side.

9. This revision not only requires the interpretation of Order XVIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but also requires prudent scrutiny of the evolution of the Tamil Nadu Official Language Act, 1956 [hereinafter the “Act” for the sake of brevity] to understand the mandate placed on the courts subordinate to the High Court of Madras to record evidence in the Tamil language. Therefore, the same will be discussed hereinafter.

Position of law before the advent of the Tamil Nadu Official Language (Amendment) Act, 1976

10. It is to be noted that Section 4-A of the Act mandates the courts subordinate to the High Court to record evidence in the “Tamil” language. The said provision was inserted in the Act by the Tamil Nadu Official Language (Amendment) Act, 1976 [hereinafter the “Amendment Act, 1976” for the sake of brevity]. Before discussing the scope of the Amendment Act, 1976, it is pertinent to understand the schem