Anim-adverting upon the order dated 28.4.2008 passed in the memo in O.S.No.200 of 2000 by the District Munsif, Dharmapuri, this civil revision petition is filed.
2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition, would run thus:
Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the suit O.S.No.200 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri, seeking the following reliefs:
@(1) jhth brhj;Jf;fspy; 3 k; thjpapd; ghj;jpak; of;nsh; bra;Jk;
(2) jhth brhj;Jf;fspy; gpujpthjpfshtJ mth;fs; Ml;fshtJ vt;tifapYk; mf;fpkg; gpuntrk; bra;ahkYk; ahbjhU Ehjd mikg;g[fos (bfhl;lha;. bfho fk;gk; KjyhdJfis) Vw;gLj;jhkypUf;ft[k;. thjpfspd; epk;gjpahd RthjPd mDgtj;jpw;F bjhy;iy juhkYkpUf;f rh!;tj ,d;$f;c&d; cj;jput[ gpwg;gpj;Jk;
(3) jhth bryt[ thjpfSf;F gpuj[pthjpfshy; fpilf;Fk;gof;Fk;
(4) ,d;Dk; rfy nfhh;l;lhh; mth;fSf;F mtrpakha[k;. epahakha[k; njhd;Wk; ,ju ghpfhu';;fSld; thjpfSf;F fpilf;Fk;gof;F jPh;khdpj;J ofphp bra;a ntz;Lkha; thjpfs; tzf;fKld; nfhUfpwhh;fs;/@ during the pendency of the suit, it so happened that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 settled the property in favour of P3, whereupon P3 was added as one of the plaintiffs and consequential amendments were got effected in the prayer column. Even before adding P3 as one of the plaintiffs, P1 filed the chief examination affidavit. After the aforesaid amendment, now on the plaintiffs' side, they wanted to get examined P3 as P.W.1, after getting eschewed the chief examination affidavit of the first plaintiff and with that intention the memo was filed and it was allowed by the lower Court. Anim-adverting upon such allowing of the said memo, this revision petition is focussed on various grounds.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/first defendant would develop his argument to the effect that absolutely there is no rhyme or reason on the part of the plaintiffs to give a go by to their own evidence and thereby, put the defendants in a quandary.
4. At this juncture, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs being dominus litus are entitled to project their case in the way known to law. They can also decide as to what type of evidence they could adduce before the Court. However whatever steps they might be taking should not be legally detrimental to the defendants. Not to put too fine a point on it, I would like to hold that rightly or wrongly P1 filed the chief examination affidavit and he has not subjected himself for cross, there at the legal consequence is that such evidence would automatically get eschewed, here owing to this voluntary act on the side of the plaintiffs such evidence got tainted and in such a case the defendants should not be precluded from making use of the said chief examination affidavit of P.W.1 for the purpose of cross-examining P3 by invoking
Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act.
5. In this factual matrix, the revision petition is ordered to the effect that P3 shall be treated as P.W.1 and accordingly he shall be cross-examined by the defendant with the help of the chief examination affidavit filed by P1 earlier, if the defendant chooses to do so and the said chief examination affidavit of P1 also could be used by the defendants for cross-examining any other plaintiffs' witness who may be examined in this case. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.