RACHASHETTY Vs. SAMBALINGASHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition by defendant-1. Against him, the suit OS. No. 147 of 1973 based on a promissory note is pending before the Court of the Munsiff, Kollegal. The promissory note was executed by defendant-1 in favour of defendant-2 who in turn assigned the same to the plaintiff, who is none other than her brother.

(2.) Defendanl-1 has denied the consideration under the promissory note. He has stated that he executed the promissory note as a collateral security. To prove that there was no consideration thereunder, he is anxiout to examine defendant-2. But defendant-2 has been evading to attend the Court. So, defendant-1 took summons to her. But that summons could not be served. Probably she avoided the process server. He then asked the Court to issue a warrant to secure her presence. That warrant also could not be executed. Thereafter, he asked the Court to issue a proclamation; But the Court refused to issue proclamation on the ground that defendant-1 has no right to examine defendant-2 who is an opposite party in the Suit. The correctness of the order of the trial Court is challenged by defendant- 1 in this revision petition.

(3.) The reason given by the learned Munsiff to reject the request to issue proclamation is not sound and also not supported, very rightly by Sri Tarakaram, learned counsel for the plaintiff. The principle that a patty in a suit has no right to examine his opposite party has no application to the present case. Mr. Tarakaram, however, sought to support the order of the trial Court on a different ground. He submitted that the Court has no jurisdiction to issue proclamation after the warrant was issued. The validity of that contention is the only question debated before me.