Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.KUMARESH BABU
Ramaniyam Real Estate Pvt Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Gunda Ramani – Respondent
Key Points: - The applicant sought subpoenas for defendants to testify in a specific performance suit; court addressed necessity of sufficient cause to summon a party as a witness. (!) (!) - The court held that a party can be summoned only with sufficient cause and that a party cannot be compelled to testify without due considerations. (!) (!) - The discussion includes the relationship and distinctions between parties and witnesses under Order XVI Rule 21 and Madras amendments to Original Side Rules, with emphasis that summons may apply to parties as witnesses when justified. (!) (!) (!) - The decision ultimately allowed the application, directing subpoenas to first and third defendants for recording of evidence. (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defendants' failure to list witnesses. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. limits of power of attorney in testimony. (Para 5 , 6 , 11) |
| 3. procedural rules on witness listing and testimony. (Para 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. comparison of parties and witnesses roles. (Para 15 , 18 , 20) |
| 5. arguments for and against summons of defendants. (Para 19 , 21 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. final ruling on the allowed application. (Para 27) |
ORDER :
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
This application is filed by the plaintiff to issue subpoena to first and third defendant to attend and give evidence in the suit C.S.No.68 of 2021. 2. Heard Mrs.S.Vaitheeswari, learned counsel for the Mr.S.Sundaresan, learned counsel for the Applicant and Mr.S.K.Rahul Vivek, learned counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4.
3. Mrs.S.Vaitheeswari, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/plaintiff would submit that the suit had been filed for a specific performance of the contract. The parties had produced the list of witnesses, documents and schedule for recording of evidence. However, the defendants had not produced their list of witnesses and affidavit of documents, but, they had filed an application to recast the issue by framing additional issues which was allo
None of the provided case excerpts explicitly state that a case has been overruled, reversed, or abrogated. While several cases cite *Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr v. Indusind Bank Ltd (2005) 2 SCC 217*, they appear to be applying or interpreting the principles established within it, not declaring it to be bad law.
### Followed/Applied
* **Ramaniyam Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs Gunda Ramani - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 69786 & - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70434:** These cases follow the precedent established in *Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr Vs Indusind Bank Ltd* (2005) 2 SCC 217. The text notes, "if the case is made out, then summons could be issued," citing these precedents as the basis for the court's reasoning regarding summoning a party to a suit.
* **Munni Devi vs Goverdhan - 2025 0 Supreme(MP) 193:** This case references *Gauhati Bank Ltd. MR 1967 SC1058* and *Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla and Ors.* as authoritative references, indicating them as legal touchstones for the current matter.
### Clarified/Interpreted
* **Shaheen @ Hanifa VS Shivakumar - 2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 489:** Clarifies the timeline for assessing a witness's knowledge: "must occur after evidence is presented, not at the application stage."
* **Sumith VS Sebastian - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1419:** Defines the scope of Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, clarifying that the privilege does not cover facts known outside of professional communication.
* **In The Goods Of Kanhaiyalal Sikhwal vs In The Goods Of Savitri Devi Sikhwal (Dec) - 2025 0 Supreme(Cal) 271:** Clarifies that "parties and witnesses are subject to similar disclosure requirements" regarding documents.
* **Gaurav Sharma vs Durga and Sons - 2025 0 Supreme(HP) 1792:** Interprets Order XVIII Rule 3A CPC, balancing the mandate for initial testimony with the court's discretion to permit later examination for "recorded reasons."
### Discretionary/Conditional Application
* **P. Duraisamy vs T.G. Bavani Shankar Iyer - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2496:** Notes that compelling a co-defendant to testify is subject to "good cause" and "Court has discretion."
* **Yagalla Appaji Praveen VS Gorti Rama Krishna - 2024 0 Supreme(AP) 1324:** Emphasizes court discretion under Order XVI Rule 14, noting that necessity must be "convincingly established."
* **M. Sharadamma, W/o Late Sri. Nagaraj M.K. vs Kiran Kumar, S/o Late Sri. Premchand - 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 72:** Discusses the nuances of summoning parties, noting that if they are not "real opponents," there may be "relaxation for very good reasons."
* **Uma Shankar Bhartia VS Suvidha Estate Agency - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1938 & Karanvir Singh Aujla vs Harinder Kaur - 2024 0 Supreme(P&H) 1530:** These appear to be statements of fact or pleadings regarding specific property disputes ("It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff," "death of Jagdarshan Singh"). As they describe factual backgrounds rather than judicial holdings or treatment of previous case law, their legal status as "precedents" is unclear based on the provided text.
* **Narne Estates Pvt Ltd vs N.Gopal Naidu and 4 Others - 2025 0 Supreme(Telangana) 182 & Vibhawna VS Anita - 2025 0 Supreme(MP) 852:** These snippets contain reasoning regarding the potential for "grave injustice" if petitions are not allowed and the necessity of evidence for "proper adjudication." While they function as judicial commentary, it is unclear if they are setting a new standard or merely applying existing procedural rules, making their specific treatment category ambiguous.
Parties in a civil suit can be summoned as witnesses under the CPC, but compelling testimony without sufficient cause violates procedural norms.
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.
A party to a suit cannot compel the opponent to testify on their behalf as a matter of right; the trial court has discretion to allow such summons based on the necessity and context of the case.
A Power of Attorney holder may manage proceedings but cannot testify on behalf of the principal for acts beyond their knowledge or where the principal must be cross-examined.
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 ....
Order XVIII Rule 3A CPC mandates initial party testimony but permits later examination for recorded reasons even if sought subsequently, exercised judicially in peculiar facts to balance justice and ....
A party to a suit cannot be equated with a witness.
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.
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
