CHACKO VARGHESE Vs. KARTHIYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition arises out of an interlocutory order passed by the court below. By that order, the court below declined permission to examine the son of the revision petitioner 2nd defendant as a witness in the case. The reason: admittedly he was present in the court throughout, when other witnesses were being examined. Not only that. He was virtually instructing counsel for the 2nd defendant and was following the entirety of the evidence adduced in the case.

(2.) The suit was for termination of an agreement whereunder some land was given to defendants 1 and 2 for quarrying and for recovery of the property.

(3.) A statutory provision pointed out as relevant in this connection is S.135 of the Evidence Act. It reads: