VENKATARATHINAM Vs. PRAMILA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIMADVERTING upon the order dated 26.08.2008 passed by the XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in M.P.No,307 of 2008 in RCOP No,2016 of 2007, this civil revision petition is focussed.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the respondent. Despite printing the name concerned, neither the counsel nor the petitioner appeared.

(3.) NO doubt at this juncture I would like to call up and recollect Order 16 Rule 21 of C.P.C by way of taking a cue from it. Simply because there is a provision for one party to summon another party, mechanically the same should not be adopted irrespective of the attending circumstances in a case. Even assuming that the landlady is brought before the Court as a witness, the question arises as to whether straightaway any fruitful chief examination could be conducted by the tenant. At the most, the tenant would be liking to cross examine the landlady by treating her as a Court witness. Apparently, there is no prayer in the petition to that effect. Simply the petitioner wanted to summon the landlady because her Manager replied to certain questions as though he had no personal knowledge about the auction. In my considered opinion, in a petition filed by the landlady for eviction as against the tenant, normally the tenant would not have the right to summon the landlady when she herself has not preferred to appear as a witness. In the meantime I would like to refer to the following decisions of the Apex Court. (i) AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1341 (Iswar Bhai C. Patel v. Harihar Behera and another)