Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R.VIJAYAKUMAR
P. Duraisamy – Appellant
Versus
T.G. Bavani Shankar Iyer – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details surrounding the specific performance claim. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding rights through the sale agreement. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 3. observations on co-defendant examination importance. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 24) |
| 4. final dismissal of both petitions. (Para 29) |
ORDER :
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.50 of 2009 on the file of the First Additional District Court (PCR), Trichy is the petitioner in both the revision petitions.
2. The 7th defendant in the said suit had filed an application to re-open the defendants' side evidence and to examine the 6th defendant as a Court witness. These two applications were allowed by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the present revision petitions have been filed by the plaintiff.
(A)Facts leading to the filing of these revision petitions are as follows:
3. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has filed the above said suit for the relief of specific performance of a sale agreement dated 07.03.2007 said to have been executed by the defendants 1 to 5 through their power agent namely the 6th defendant.
4. The plaintiff had contended that the defendants 1 to 5 are the owners of the property and they had ex
A co-defendant can be compelled to testify if good cause is shown, and the Court has discretion over such requests.
A party to a suit can call another party as a witness under specific circumstances, but must provide a valid justification for doing so according to procedural rules.
Parties in a civil suit can be summoned as witnesses under the CPC, but compelling testimony without sufficient cause violates procedural norms.
Summoning a defendant as the plaintiff's witness is discouraged and should occur only in exceptional circumstances; the plaintiff must bear the burden of proof.
The court upheld the trial court's discretion under Order XVI Rule 14, emphasizing that the necessity to summon a party must be convincingly established.
Point of Law : Negligence and failure to produce such evidence because of inadvertence/negligence, is not a lawful ground to permit a party to lead the additional evidence within the ambit and scope ....
Permission to examine a witness can be granted before or after examination, with careful consideration to avoid prejudice, as highlighted in various legal precedents.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
