A.K. Banerjee, J. - (1.) The applicant/plaintiff filed an eviction proceeding as against the respondent/opposite party. She wanted to examine the respondent/opposite party as her witness. Such prayer was rejected by the learned Judge of the Court below. Hence, this application for revision. Mr. K.M.B. Jayapal, learned counsel appearing in support of the application relied on Order 16 Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is quoted below: "21. Rules as to witnesses to apply to parties summoned. Where any party to a suit is required to give evidence or to produce a document, the provisions as to witnesses shall apply to him so far as they are applicable."
(2.) He also cited two decisions: (i) : AIR 2001 Mad 410 (V. K. Periasamy alias Perianna Gounder vs. D. Rajan). (ii) : AIR 1988 MP 178 (Dattaji Rao alias Raje vs. Smt. Ganga Bai).
(3.) In the case of Periasamy (supra) learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court observed that there was no total bar in issuing a summon to another party to a suit to give evidence as witness. His Lordship was of the opinion that Order 16 Rule 21 was inserted in the Code so that in a particular situation a party would be entitled to call another party to the suit to give evidence. In the case of Dattaji (supra) the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was of the view that a party and a witness in the matter of giving evidence should not be differentiated;