ANTONY METILDA Vs. VAIRAMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition has been preferred impugning the fair and decreetal orders, dated 27.02.2017, passed in I.A.No.168 of 2016 in O.S.No.153 of 2003, on the file of the Sub Court, Pudukottai.

(2.) Seeking to eschew the evidence of P.W.1, on the ground that he had not submitted himself for cross-examination, it is found that the respondent / defendant has laid the application in I.A.No.168 of 2017. It is the case of the of the respondent / defendant that inasmuch as the husband of the petitioner / plaintiff, who has been examined as P.W.1, did not care to submit himself for cross-examination, though the respondent / defendant was always ready and willing to cross-examine him, it is the case of the respondent / defendant that P.W.1 having subsequently died his evidence cannot be allowed to be retained on record and hence, the same is liable to be eschewed and the petitioner / plaintiff should be directed to proceed with the case by tendering evidence and proceed further in the matter to substantiate her case.

(3.) The above said application was resisted by the petitioner / plaintiff contending that though P.W.1 was ready for cross-examination, on account of the delaying tactics adopted by the respondent / defendant in filing impleadment application and thereby, dragging on the matter endlessly, it is contended that P.W.1 was not examined and meanwhile as P.W.1 died, it is contended that his evidence already recorded cannot be eschewed and the same could be relied upon by the petitioner / plaintiff as a valid evidence as per law and hence, the application is liable to be dismissed.