KURSHID BEGUM Vs. AMNI JAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision is directed against the order of IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, made in I. A. No. 5364 of 1996 in O. S. No. 1707 of 1988 dated 17-08-2000, Ordering eschewing of the evidence of P. W. 1. The Plaintiffs are the Revision Petitioners.

(2.) THE relevant facts for disposal of this Revision Petition could briefly be stated thus :-

(3.) AGGRIEVED over the order of eschewing the chief-examination of P. W. 1, the Plaintiffs have preferred this Revision. The learned Senior Counsel for the Revision Petitioners Mr. M. Balasubramanian, assailed the impugned order contending that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the position; that despite several opportunities to the Defendants, they have not used the same in cross-examining the P. W. 1. Contending that the probative value of P. W. 1's evidence is to be determined only at a later stage, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the trial Court has committed serious error in eschewing the chief-examination of P. W. 1. The learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that under no circumstance the evidence of the witness, who is dead, could be ordered to be eschewed. In support of his contention that the evidence cannot be eschewed and that its probative value could be gone into only at the later stage, the learned Senior Counsel for the Revision Petitioners has relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 1925 Madras 497 (MAHARAJA OF KOLHAPUR Vs. SUNDARAM AYYAR) and 1998 Crl. L. J. 3494 (FOOD INSPECTOR, THODUPUZHA CIRCLE Vs. JAMES N. T. ).