Anim-adverting upon the order dated 19.6.2008 passed in I.A.No.392 of 2008 in O.S.No.251 of 2005 by the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri.
2. The epitome and summarisation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of the revision petition, would run thus:
The respondent, as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S.No.251 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif, Krishnagiri, seeking the following reliefs:
"a. to declare the title of the plaintiff into the suit property b. to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4 and their men from in any manner trespassing into the suit property or occupying the same or putting up any construction thereon or creating any documents in respect of the same;
c.to grant permanent injunction restraining the 5th defendant from registering any document that be presented by defendants 1 to 4 or others, other than plaintiff, for registration;
d. to direct the defendants 1 to 4 to pay costs of suit; and e. to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Whereupon the petitioners/defendants herein filed written statement. Full-fledged trial was conducted and both sides adduced evidence also and the matter was posted for arguments, admittedly. At that stage, the respondent/plaintiff filed application I.A.No.392 of 2008 seeking permission of the Court to permit him to be examined as witness on his side, as only his Power of Attorney was examined earlier as P.W.1 and at the relevant time, the plaintiff was in Muscat. Despite objection filed by the revision petitioners/defendants, the lower Court allowed it. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the present revision petition is focussed on various grounds.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants would appropriately and appositely, correctly and convincingly put forth his argument to the effect that absolutely there is no reason found set out or exemplified in the affidavit for getting the respondent/plaintiff examined as one of the witnesses on his side and that too, at the belated stage of the case; purely for the purpose of filling up the lacuna, such an application was filed and the trial Court simply allowed it.
4. Perused the records.
5. Indubitably and incontrovertibly, unassailably and apparently it is clear that the matter was posted for arguments. The said suit itself was filed by the respondent/plaintiff through his Power of Attorney who examined himself as a witness. No permission was sought for from the Court for getting the respondent/plaintiff examined at a later stage, as per Order 18 Rule 3-A of C.P.C. However, the lower Court simply remarking that Order 18 Rule 3-A is not mandatory and it is only recommendatory, allowed the application. The said approach of the lower Court is far from satisfactory for the reason that the affidavit is vague as vagueness could be and it is bereft of details. It is just and necessary to extract here under the relevant portion of the affidavit for ready reference:
"2.I further submit that the above case is posted for arguements. The petitioner was in Muscat and that he could be examined as a witness on the side of the plaintiff. He wants to depose as a witness, with regard to some important aspects, and that the evidence on the side of the plaintiff is to be re-opened. Otherwise the petitioner will be seriously prejudiced."
6. A bare perusal of it would reveal that the aforesaid averments are bald as baldness could be and that can by no stretch of imagination could be taken as proper ground, much less sufficient ground for the purpose of the respondent/plaintiff getting himself examined at such a belated stage of the case. It is a common or garden principle of law that after the closing of evidence on the defendants' side, if the plaintiff's side is opened and that too for examining certain important witness like the party to the case, certainly, the Court should look for sound reasons. But, in this case, absolutely there is no morsel or iota, shard or shred of reason found set out, justifying the prayer of the respondent/plaintiff.
7. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the lower Court exercised its discretion erroneously and improperly, causing prejudice to the petitioners/defendants. The remark of the lower Court that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners/defendants is neither here nor there. The very attempt on the part of the respondent/plaintiff to examine himself when the matter has been posted for argument itself would ex facie and prima facie prejudice the petitioners/defendants and separately, the petitioners/defendants are not expected to detail and delineate as to what are all the prejudice that have been caused to them. Hence, in these circumstances, the order of the lower Court, dated 19.6.2006 passed in I.A.No.392 of 2008 is set aside and the C.R.P. is allowed.
8. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Msk To The District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri