LAWS(MAD)-2012-10-53

S.BALACHANDRAN Vs. TAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION

Decided On October 12, 2012
S.BALACHANDRAN Appellant
V/S
TAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant is the Revision Petitioner in C.R.P. (PD) Nos. 2193 & 3169 of 2012. The Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner in C.R.P. (PD) No. 2395 of 2012. The Plaintiff filed the Suit in O.S. No. 594 of 2003 for recovery of money on the basis of the pro-notes executed by the Defendant. In the Suit, the Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and also examined another witness as PW2 and the Defendant also examined himself as DW1. At that stage, the Defendant filed Application under Section 154 of the Evidence Act for the issuance of summons to one Palanichamy as Court Witness and that Application was dismissed and against the same, C.R.P. (PD) No. 3169 of 2012 was filed.

(2.) The Defendant also filed an Application to recall PW1 for further cross-examination and that Application was dismissed and against that C.R.P. (PD) No. 3169 of 2012 was filed.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Defendant that the Respondent/Plaintiff filed the Suit on the basis of six pro-notes dated 7.7.1997 alleged to have been executed by the Revision Petitioner/Defendant and the Revision Petitioner has taken the defence that the pro-notes are fabricated and he borrowed money from one Palanichamy and executed various blank pro-notes as demanded by the said Palanichamy and the said Palanichamy filed a Suit against the Revision Petitioner/Defendant and also gave other blank pro-notes to the Respondent/Plaintiff for filing the present Suit and the Suit filed by Palanichamy in O.S. No. 232 of 2004 was also decreed and therefore, to prove that the pro-notes relied upon by the Respondent/Plaintiff were given by Palanichamy, the said Palanichamy has to be examined as Court Witness and as the said Palanichamy has already filed the Suit against the Revision Petitioner, he cannot be examined on his side and therefore, he must be examined as Court Witness and without appreciating the same, the Court below erred in dismissing the Application holding that the Application ought to have been filed under Order 16, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Application was filed under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and therefore, the Application was not maintainable and the Court below ought not to have rejected the Application on the ground that wrong provision was quoted and under Order 16, Rule 14, the Court has got discretion to summon any person as witness and as per the judgment in Palanisamy, K.C. v. M. Chinnasamy, 2002 4 CTC 222, when the Court feels that a person cannot give evidence in favour of a party, such person can be examined as Court Witness and considering the fact that Palanichamy filed the Suit against the Revision Petitioner, he cannot be examined by the Revision Petitioner and his evidence is most important to decide the issue and that was not properly appreciated by the Court below.