![]() ![]() " 'Such a practice', said their Lordships "ought never to be permitted in the result to embarrass judicial investigation as it is sometimes allowed to be done". This Court also had occasion, in the case of Pirgonda Hongonda (supra), to consider the point whether the plaintiff can call the defendant as his witness and upon considering rival submissions on merits, this Court in said exposition has reproduced the observations of Privy Council in - Kishori Lal v. In such a case the plaintiff must be treated as a person who puts the defendant forward as a witness of truth. As rightly contended by the Counsel for the petitioner the Privy Council, in the case of Mahunt Shatrugan Das (supra), has held that the practice of calling the defendant, as a witness to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, is condemnable. ![]() It is not in dispute that the evidence of the plaintiff and, so also that of the defendants, is closed, and they have filed evidence close Purshis.ĥ. Upon careful perusal of the impugned order, it appears that, the trial Court has not given detailed and cogent reasons why the 5 WP NO.1673/2011ĭefendant no.4 is required to be summoned as a witness of the plaintiff. ![]() I have given due consideration to the rival submissions. Therefore, relying upon the averments in the affidavit in reply and the afore mentioned two expositions of Patna High Court and of this Court, Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the writ petition is devoid of any merits and same may be dismissed.Ĥ. Sri Brij Bihari Singh and others ( AIR 1993 PATNA 122) and judgment of this Court in the case of Ramdas Dhondibhu Pokharkar (supra), and more particularly paragraph no.5 of the said judgment. Learned Counsel for the respondents pressed into service the judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Sri Awadh Kishore Singh and another vs. Accordingly, application filed by the respondents was allowed and the defendant no.4 was called as a witness of the plaintiff. Relying upon averments in the affidavit in reply, Counsel for the respondents submits that, though defendant no.4 has filed the written statement, he did not enter in the witness box to depose.Therefore, an application was filed for calling defendant no.4 as witness of the plaintiff. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for all the respondents has tendered across the Bar affidavit in reply. Therefore, Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition may be allowed. It is always open to the Court to draw adverse inference if the defendant does not step in the witness box in pursuance to filing of written statement. Evidence Close Purshis are filed by the plaintiff as well as the defendants and, therefore, at that stage, it was not necessary for the trial Court to call the defendant no.4 as a witness of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the evidence of the plaintiff and also the defendants is closed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that, there are no any specific reasons assigned by the trial Court for calling defendant no.4 as a witness of the plaintiff. ![]() Vishwanath Ganesh and others ( AIR 1956 Bombay 251 ( V 43 C 104 April) to contend that the practice of calling defendant by plaintiff as witness is condemnable. State Bank of India and another ( 2003(1) ALL MR 76), and Pirgonda Hongonda v. Gavisiddangowda and another ( AIR 1959 MYSORE 194 ( V 46 C 80), and further the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramdas Dhondibhu Pokharkar vs. (38) 1951 Jammu & Kashmir 5), reported judgment of the Mysore High Court in the case of Mallangowda and others vs. Bawa Sham Das and others ( A.I.R.1938 Privy Council 59) and 3 WP NO.1673/2011Īlso the judgment of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the case of Ganda Mal v. Learned Counsel further invited my attention to the reported judgment of Privy Council, in the case of Mahunt Shatrugan Das vs. 1929 Lahore 868 (2) wherein the said Court has taken a view that, the practice allowing parties to examine each other as witnesses on its own behalf is objectionable. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the exposition of Lahore High Court in the case of Biram Das v. It is submitted that there is no any enabling provision to call the defendant as a witness of the plaintiff. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, by way of impugned order the original defendant no.4 is summoned / called as witness of the plaintiff. Rule made returnable, heard finally with the consent of Counsel for parties.Ģ. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |