P.MUTHU Vs. A.K.KAJA KAMALUDEEN (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is filed against the order passed by the learned I Additional District Munsif Court, Trichy in O.S.No.982 of 2012 dtd. 11/2/2020.

(2.) According to the revision petitioner, the order of the trial Court expunging the portion of oral evidence of P.W.1 is illegal. The revision petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has only stated that his grandfather was inducted as a tenant by one Kajamain Rawthar and he was a tenant under Kaja Kamaludeen. However, the trial Court has erroneously held that the petitioner has admitted that he was in dural relation ship and erroneously held that the petitioner is a tenant under Kaja Kamaludeen and therefore, he cannot put questions about non-joinder of the legal heirs of Kajamain Rowther is fatal. He would further submit that the specific stand taken by the petitioner is that the said Kaja Moihdeen has no locus standi to file the suit without impleading the legal heirs of the Kajamian Rowthar that the respondents 1 to 4 cannot maintain the suit without impleading other co-owners. The trial Court erred in holding that the petitioner being a cultivating tenant, cannot raise the question relating to non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court expunging the portion of oral evidence of P.W.1 in O.S.No.1982 of 2012 is liable to be set aside.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that Sec. 138 of the Evidence Act, provides that cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the Witness testified on his examination-in-chief. Sec. 146 of the Evidence Act, provides that it shall be lawful for the cross-examining Counsel, to put questions to discover who the Witness is and what is his position in life or to shake his credit, by injuring his character, although the answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly to criminate him or might expose or tend directly or indirectly to expose him to a penalty of forfeiture. Therefore, it was definitely open to the Counsel to ask the question regarding the character of the Witnesses, while cross-examining the Witness [Ref: 2018(2 )CTC 620].