SYED MOHAMMED Vs. AZIZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First defendant is the revision petitioner. He wanted to examine the second defendant as a witness. The Trial Court rejected I.A. 401 of 1990 which was filed to direct the second defendant to appear before the Court as a witness.

(2.) A defendant cannot compel another defendant to appear before the Court as his witness. The practice of citing the opposite party as a witness has been condemned as an unapproved form of evidence. If such a practice is allowed, it would result in cross examination by his own counsel. To illustrate, if the second defendant is examined by the first defendant's counsel the counsel of the former gets the opportunity to cross examine his own client This is an unwholesome practice. Indeed it will be a strange spectacle. Such a practice was condemned by the Privy Council in Kishori Lal v. Chunni Lal (ILR XXXI Allahabad 116). The court observed:

(3.) Learned Munsiff has rightly held that the first defendant cannot compel the second defendant to be examined as a witness for him. The Civil Revision is dismissed. No costs.