JAYASEELAN Vs. ARULRAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner/plaintiff filed an application before the trial Court under Order 16 Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to summon the third respondent/third defendant as his witness and to give evidence in the pending suit. After hearing both sides, the learned District Munsif dismissed the application holding that in view of settled position of law that the practice of a party causing his opponent to be summoned as a witness has to be disapproved. Hence the revision petition.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. Nithianandam and Mr. M. Sathyanarayanan, learned counsel for the third respondent.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the provisions under Order 16 Rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Code and cited the decision, AIR 1967 Mys 37 (Syed Yasin vs. Saha Muhamad Hussain) in support of his contention that, to meet the ends of justice, it is necessary to summon the third respondent as a witness of the revision petitioner so as to prove his claim for damages on the ground of malicious prosecution.