ACHYUTANA PITCHAIAH SARMA Vs. GORANTLA CHINNA VEERAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this C. R. P. a question of general importance as to the power of Court to exclude from the Court parties and their witnesses during the trial arises for decision. The suit was filed in the year 1951 and after a chequered career, was taken up again by the lower court. The fourth defendant in the suit is the petitioner in this C. R. P. It is stated that the examination and Gross-examination of the plaintiffs witnesses was over and that the fourth defendant was present when they were examined.Then, one Nalluuri Yacob was put in the witness-box as the first witness for the defendants. At that time also, the fourth defendant was sitting in Court. The witness stated "I know the suit lands". Then the counsel for the plaintiff objected to the fourth defendant sitting in the court, but Sri M. Venkateswarlu, the learned counsel for the defendants stated that he has to get instructions and that he objects to the fourth defendant being sent out of the Court.The Court ordered the fourth defendant to leave the Court hall. On that, Sri Venkateswarlu stated that he would not proceed with the suit and that he would carry the matter in revision to the High Court. Thereupon the examination of the witnesses was stopped and the case was adjourned and this revision was filed by the fourth defendant questioning the power and the jurisdiction of the Court to order him out of the court hall when he was instructing his counsel with regard to the examination of his witness.It may be noted that the objection raised by the plaintiffs counsel to the presence of the fourth defendant in the Court hall when the latters witnesses were being examined was only oral. But, here, in the High Court, in the affidavit filed by the fourth defendant in support of the application for stay of trial of the suit pending this C. R. P. it is stated that the fourth defendant was in charge of the defence relating to the account sought of the trustees and that he was instructing his counsel throughout. The first defendant managing trustee could not do so as he was having blood-Pressure.It is also stated that if he is ordered out of the Court hall, it will not only inconvenience his counsel, but will render the defence difficult because there are details in the matter of the account sought, of which the fourth defendant is more aware than others and of which he had to remind his counsel from time to time and that the objection to his presence taken by the plaintiffs was mala fide and was intended only to make the defence difficult.To this affidavit, a counter-affidavit was filed by Muddana Venkatasubbiah, who is the fifth plaintiff. In Paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the fourth defendant was asked to go out of the court hall while the examination of his other witnesses was going on, because the fourth defendant himself is a witness for the defendants and due to his personal influence, the other witnesses may feel embarrassed to depose against him. Hence, it is stated, that while he himself is to be a principal witness, if he were allowed to be present, he would try to Patch up the evidence when his turn comes.It is not clear from the order of the learned Judge whether these allegations and counter-allegations were made before him and whether he considered these matters before he ordered the fourth defendant out of the Court hall when his other witnesses were being examined. Whatever it be, it is necessary to consider whether the court has got the power to order Parties and their witnesses out of the Court hall during the trial of the suit when the examination of the witnesses is going on.

(2.) Sri B.V. Subramanyam, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relied upon an observation in In re Vemureddi Babureddi, ILR 44 Mad 916 : (AIR 1921 Mad 424). Sir John Wallis Kt. C.J. observed at p. 917 (ILR Cal) : (at P. 424 of AIR) as follows:

(3.) The first question for consideration is whether a Court has got power to order unexamined witnesses out of Court until their evidence is taken. Neither the Evidence Act nor the Code of Civil and Criminal Procedure contain any section Or rule for ordering witnesses out of court although it is generally done by the courts as a matter of practice. In my view, the court has inherent power to regulate the business of the court in the way it thinks best or to make any order that may be necessary for the ends of justice.I am also of the opinion that even in the absence of any specific provision in any enactment, the Court has power to order that no witness who has to give evidence should be present when the depositions of other witnesses are being taken until he himself is examined as a witness in full. In Halsburys Laws of England, Vol. 15, Simonds Edn. at page 439, the rule of Practice is stated to be that at any time during the course of a trial, on an application of any party, the Judge may order witnesses in the case to leave the Court until called for.The authority for this is stated to be Selfe v. Issaccson, (1858) 1 P and F 194 : 175 ER 688. Again in Halsburys Laws of England, Vol. 10, at p. 470, it is stated that unexamined witnesses may be ordered out of court at the request of either party. It is therefore clear that the court has power to order unexamined witnesses out of court at any time during the trial on the application of either party.