Point of Law: Party to the suit cannot be denied his legitimate right of putting forth his evidence before the Court of law.

ORDER :

CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J.

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6920 of 2017

1. Questioning the validity and the legality of the order that is rendered by the Court of VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District in I.A.No.50 of 2017 in O.S.No.2081 of 2006, dated 09.08.2017, the revision petitioner, who is arrayed as respondent No.9 in the said interlocutory application, is before this Court.

2. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, i.e., the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.1. Also, gave anxious consideration to their submission including the applicability of the decision of this Court in the case between M.Venkataratnam Reddy Vs. P.L.Manogaran and Others, 2013 (4) ALD 324.

3. By the submission of both the learned counsel what could be culminated is that a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property is filed by respondent No.1 herein against the revision petitioner, who is shown as defendant No.9, and others.

4. Defendant No.2 and defendant No.9 i.e., revision petitioner filed a common written statement in the suit. The trial Court after framing of issues commenced trial. Defendant No.2 got examined himself as D.W-1 and defendant No.9 i.e., the revision petitioner filed his affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination as D.W-2 and when the matter was posted for his cross-examination, respondent No.1/plaintiff moved an interlocutory application vide I.A.No.50 of 2017 seeking the Court to eschew the evidence of D.W-2 i.e., the revision petitioner. The said application was allowed through the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner is before this Court.

5. The main ground urged while seeking to eschew the evidence of D.W-2 is that he was present in the open Court while D.W-1 was cross-examined and therefore, he should be precluded from giving evidence. Thus, in the light of the said plea taken, the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the presence of a party to the suit during the course of cross-examination of a witness precludes him from giving evidence before the Court of law.

6. Justifying the plea taken through this Revision Petition, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that no objection was taken by the learned counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff regarding the presence of the revision petitioner while D.W-1 was cross-examined and the revision petitioner is not being examined as a witness of defendant No.2, but he is one of the parties to the suit and that, each party to the suit has got right to participate in the proceedings and adduce evidence and the same was done by the revision petitioner and therefore, the order of the trial Court is unjustifiable.

7. Vehemently opposing the said submission, the learned counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff submitted that if the revision petitioner/defendant No.9 had got an intention to testify before the Court, he ought not to have appeared and present in the Court hall while D.W-1 was being cross-examined, and having heard what was asked and what was stated by D.W-1 during the course of his cross-examination, now he cannot project himself before the Court as a witness. The learned counsel further contended that only to fill up the lacunae and to cover the laches, the evidence of the revision petitioner/defendant No.9 is pressed into service and therefore, the trial Court rightly eschewed his evidence.

8. The learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff, submitting that when one of the witnesses is being examined, others who are proposed to be examined as witnesses should not be present in the Court hall and that is the dictum of law, relied upon the decision of this Court in the case between M.Venkataratnam Reddy (supra). The factual matrix of the said case is as follows:-

“In a suit for perpetual injunction, when D.W-2 was being cross-examined, a person who was sought to be examined as D.W-3 and filed