N YOVAS Vs. IMMANUEAL JOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is it proper for one party in a suit to summon the counsel of his opposite party as a witness? No doubt, any person can be cited as a witness if he has the testimonial competence envisaged in Sec.118 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But should not the Court be greatly circumspect when the counsel engaged by the opposite side is sought to be summoned as a witness? That question needs consideration now.

(2.) This appeal arises from one of the two suits sprouted from a shunted matrimonial proposal. The proposal for the marriage registered fast progress initially and reached up to publication of "banns" in the church, but then it went away as one of the parties backed out from it. The bride's party filed a suit in the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara for damages alleging fraud and deception. The other side (bridegroom's party) also filed a suit at Kuzhithura (in Tamil Nadu) for damages alleging breach of promise. Further details of the rival claims are unnecessary for this appeal and hence we omit them. However, bare facts just sufficient for this appeal are the following: The suit in Neyyattinkara Court reached almost the final stage as both sides closed their evidence. But appellants then filed a petition seeking permission to cite the advocate of the respondents as a witness. Learned Sub-Judge allowed the petition and ordered summons to be issued to him. Some time later, respondents moved for a review of the said order and learned Sub-Judge allowed the review application as per the impugned order.

(3.) It was first contended before us that the review petition was time barred. Though the same contention was raised in the lower Court, learned Sub-Judge overruled it on the premise that the counsel for the plaintiffs conceded that the Court could review the order suo motu. In view of the said concession, we do not think it necessary to consider whether the application for review was time barred.