RAMUTHAI Vs. MOOKKAYEE ALIAS PAPPAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the defendants 1 to 6 in O.S. No. 677 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul. After the commencement of trial, in order to examine the witnesses on their behalf, the plaintiffs filed a proof affidavit for chief examination of one Jeyaraman, who is not a party to the suit. The said Jeyaraman is the son of the second plaintiff. On the contrary, the petitioners filed an application under section 151 CPC read with Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 before the Court below seeking to scrap such proof affidavit contending that the plaintiffs did not get permission to examine a third party, before they were examined as witnesses. But, the Court has returned the petition stating that there is no bar to examine son on behalf of mother as witness and held that the petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable.

(2.) The petitioners re-presented the petition by making endorsement under Order 18 Rule 3A of the Civil Procedure Code to the effect that without getting permission of the Court, proof affidavit of the witness, by name, Jeyaraman was produced and that should be necessarily scrapped. The learned counsel for the petitioners also produced authorities before the Court below on the point but, again, the Court below returned the petition by stating that the referred citations are only for the order of witnesses to be examined and examination of son as a witness for his mother cannot be questioned by the other side and that the petition is not maintainable.

(3.) Since the Court below has repeatedly returned the petition without taking it on file, the petitioners have come before this Court with this Revision Petition.