R RAVI Vs. I PANDIYARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONSIDERING the limited scope of the prayer in this petition, this Court proposed to dispose of the civil revision petition, even without notice to the respondent as this order will not prejudice the respondent.

(2.) THIS civil revision petition has been filed challenging the order-dated 14.02.2007, in I.A.No.651 of 2006 in O.S.No.1465 of 2004, on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Dindigul.

(3.) I have considered the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. I am not able to agree with both the contentions of the learned counsel. First of all Rule 75 of Civil Rules of Practice, has no application to the facts of the present case as the prayer in the application itself is not for summoning of any document but to summon the witnesses only. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in the plaint itself, it is admitted that the suit property is Natham Poromboke and the respondent is trying to introduce a new case with reference to the nature of the classification of the land by examining the witnesses also cannot be accepted at this stage. Whether the purchase was made by the father of the plaintiff on the footing that the property was a Natham Poromboke or the same was a patta land are all to be canvased before the lower Court. It is always open to the parties to choose their own witnesses to examine so as to prove their case. It cannot be prevented by the other parties. If it is the case of the petitioner, that by summoning these witnesses, the respondent is trying to bring on record some irrelevant evidence, it is always open to the petitioner to raise objections regarding the irrelevancy of the questions before the lower Court with a prayer not to record the same. For this reason, the right of the respondent to examine his own witnesses cannot be denied.