THANKAMANI Vs. PRABHAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a party to a civil suit request the court for permission to cross examine the witness cited by himself This is the question posed for decision in this case.

(2.) In answer to the suit for money in respect of an amount of Rs. 15,000/- brought by the respondent herein, the defendant (revision petitioner herein) set up a counter claim for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. It was alleged that the defendant's title deeds were given to the plaintiff; that he borrowed Rs. 25,000/- from one Vinod by pledging the document to him; that ultimately the defendant had to pay the sum of Rs. 25,000/- to Vinod and that in the circumstances, the plaintiff was liable to pay the defendant the said amount of Rs. 25,000/-. In order to prove the contention, the defendant cited the said Vinod as a witness. Vinod, however, did not support the defence case when examined in court. A motion was subsequently made for reopening evidence and to recall Vinod for subjecting him to cross examination. As per the impugned order the Trial Court dismissed both the applications. It is aggrieved by this common order that the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Sri. A. Mohamed Mustaque, who argued the case of the revision petitioner, submitted that the Trial Court has proceeded on wrong premises in so far as the reason given in the impugned order for denying the request of the petitioner is that there is no previous statement available before court based on which a cross examination could be permitted. According to the counsel, whether there is a previous statement or not and whether the case involves application of criminal law or civil law, the provisions of S.154 of the Indian Evidence Act would be applicable and the defendant, in the circumstances was fully justified in making the motion in question.