NATHU Vs. 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ETAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition the petitioners pray for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 24th March, 1986 passed by the II Addl. Munsif, Etah in Original Suit No. 323 of 1985 and the revisional order dated 9-10-1987 of the I Additional District Judge, Etah in Civil Revision No. 27 of 1986 and for a direction to the court below to proceed with the suit.

(2.) SRI A. S. Diwakar, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of Ashok Kumar, respondent no. 2, and made a statement the he would not file counter-affidavit on behalf of his client and has no objection if the writ petition is disposed of today finally.

(3.) SRI A. S. Diwakar, on the other hand, submitted that the civil suit cannot proceed against Askok Kumar, respondent no. 2, because an accused in a criminal case cannot be compelled to disclose bis defence, and he has a right as accused to remain silent. This argument has been built up on the provisions contained in Article 20 (3) of the Constitution and reliance has been placed on the case of Smt. Nandini Satpathy v. P. L. Dani and another (AIR 1978 SC 1025). SRI Diwakar has urged that Ashok Kumar will be called up on to enter on his defence in the suit and would be subject to cross- examination which would amount to compelled testimony' and would be violative of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution. It is a far-fetched argument. SRI Ashok Kumar has already filed his written statement in the suit, a copy whereof is Annexure 'II', to the writ petition. In the said written statement he has specifically pleaded that the sale deed was executed by the petitioners and there was no element of impersonation. On the basis of the said written statement, issues have already been framed in the suit.