CHAMPA LAL Vs. AMAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Maheshwari and perused the impugned order dated 17-11-1998 whereby the defendant-petitioner's application under Order 18, Rule 2, C.P.C., praying that the plaintiff be directed to produce all the witnesses on a single day was rejected.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the evidence of the plaintiff would be mostly oral and in order the witnesses may not be tutored and they may speak the truth, it would be necessary that the plaintiff should be directed to produce all his witnesses on the day fixed for his evidence. Shri Maheshwari expressed his apprehension that if the plaintiff is allowed to produce his witnesses on several dates, opportunity would be available to the plaintiff to tutor his witnesses and thereby temper with their evidence and that would defeat the ends of justice.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Our judicial system, depends not only on an independent judiciary, it equally depends on honest and scrupulous witnesses. While there is a presumption that persons appearing before the Court and taking oath of truthfullness would be speaking the truth, it cannot be ruled out that sometimes some witnesses, for some reasons, known or unknown, do not strictly adhere to the oath which they take. In such cases where the witnesses make a wrong statement before the Court, the course of justice is obstructed even if the wrong statement made by the witness is made without any mala fide or ill-will. Untruth pollutes the stream of justice more than any other pollutant available to the mankind. However, the remedy for avoiding perjury and untruth does not lie in giving direction to the witnesses that all of them should appear on the day fixed for hearing and to further regulate their activities with a view to ensure that they are not tampered with. Similarly, the remedy for the above mentioned evil does not lie in the procedure suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Court should call all the witnesses on the single day and examine them on the same day because it is practically not possible in a large number of cases. The only remedy which is available for eradication of the above-mentioned evil is firstly in the nature of a voluntary decision of every person who is called upon to appear as a witness to determine himself/herself that he/she would adhere to the oath taken by that person and that he/she would not by any act, including the statement, pollute the stream of justice by making any untrue statement. The next best remedy to eradicate perjury and untruth would probably to take stern action against those who pollute the stream of justice by making false statement in the Courts and yet hope that they would escape without punishment. Adherence to truth will have to be insisted upon even if it requires expense of time and money and involves taking suitable action against those who make false statements either for promoting their claims or for defending themselves. Recent years have witnessed an awareness among the people of some of the civilised countries as is indicated by their efforts to bring home, even to the highly placed persons that they cannot escape punishment if they commit the sin of polluting the stream of justice by making false statement. Awareness on the part of the witnesses of their primary duty to speak the truth and truth alone in the Court; awareness of the people that if they wish to continue to reap the benefits of this civilisation, they must not allow others to speak untruth in any form and the awareness of those whose duty it is to maintain, not only the law and order but also the constitutional, legal and moral norms in the society by taking appropriate action, against those who break them, appears to be the most efficacious remedy for eradicating the evil pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner.