KARUNAKARAN Vs. SREENIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the plaintiff. His suit for realisation of money on the strength of a promissory note though decreed by the Trial Court was distressed by the first appellate Court.

(2.) The question raised in the second appeal is whether the District Judge was justified in accepting the opinion of another court to impeach the credit of plaintiff and his witness. The District Judge bad made reference to Ext. B-5 judgment in O. S.215 of 1974 which was a suit filed by the present plaintiff and his brother for realisation of certain amount due to them on the strength of a promissory note. O. S.215 of 1974 was dismissed finding that the promissory note was not genuine. Counsel contended that the question whether a witness is entitled to credit or not should be decided by a court on the evidence before it and not on the basis of another judgment in another case.

(3.) Whether a witness is entitled to credit or not must be decided by the court on the evidence before it and not on what another court thought of the witness in another case. S.155 of the Evidence Act provides in what manner the credit of a witness can be impeached. The credit of a witness can be impeached by the adverse party, or with the consent of the court by the party who calls him:-