NARASIMHAN Vs. JAYAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiffs in the suit in O. S. No. 420 of 1994 as against the fair and decretal order dated 23-10-2003 made in LA. No. 1288 of 2003 in the said suit on the file of the Court of Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam.

(2.) TRACING the history of the above Civil Revision Petition coming to be filed before this Court, it conies to be seen that an application was filed by the respondent herein, who is the 5th defendant in the suit under Section 151 of CPC to reject the proof affidavit filed by the second defendant in the suit, on grounds such as that the first defendant as the Power of Attorney Agent of the second defendant does not have any independent right; that on behalf of the second defendant, the first defendant himself has adduced evidence as P. W. 1, which would be considered as that of the evidence of the second defendant and therefore, the second defendant need not necessarily be examined and an application filed to that effect is pending; that moreover, the thumb impression expert has been examined in the case as P. W. 3, that as per Order 18, Rule 3 parties must be examined before the witnesses in the case; that since a non-party witness has been examined as P. W. 3, thereafter the second defendant cannot be examined as a party and on such grounds, the petitioner has prayed for dismissing the proof affidavit filed by the second defendant.

(3.) EVEN though, this application was stiffly opposed by the otherside, the petitioner before the lower Court on ground that questions have been raised against the power of attorney given in favour of P. W. 1 in the suit and therefore, it has become necessary on the part of the second defendant to examine himself as a witness and therefore, would pray to dismiss the application filed on the part of the petitioners.