Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 49 (AP)

Kande Srinivasulu v. Yellamraju Venkata Raju

2014-01-20

B.CHANDRA KUMAR

body2014
Judgment Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. No representation for the respondents. This revision is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 04.03.2010 in I.A.No.861 of 2009 in O.S.No.1463 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioners 1 and 2 herein are the respondents 1 and 3 in the main suit and the third respondent is second defendant in the suit. The petitioners herein filed I.A.No.868 of 2009 under Order V Rule 3 CPC seeking to summon the first plaintiff to appear before the Court and to give evidence. The main contention of the petitioner herein is that according to the first petitioner, the first plaintiff did not sign on vakalat and also did not sign on the plaint and on his behalf the second plaintiff alone forged the signature of the first plaintiff. The respondents 1 and 2 herein denied the fact that the first plaintiff did not put his signature on the vakalat and plaint. It is also their case that it is their discretion and liberty to examine their witnesses to prove their contentions. As far as examination of witnesses is concerned, of course it is the option of the plaintiffs to examine their witnesses when there are number of plaintiffs, it is for the plaintiffs to examine any one or some of them as witnesses on their behalf. No party can force another party to appear before the Court and give evidence, that is the normal practice. But when there is a specific allegation that the first plaintiff has not signed on the plaint and also on the vakalat and that his signature has been forged, then it becomes an obligation on the part of the Court to verify the said fact and such verification is possible only when the first plaintiff is summoned to appear before the Court. The court may not insist the first plaintiff to give evidence, but the Court may ascertain the first plaintiff whether he has signed on the plaint and vakalat and may direct to subscribe his signature or thumb impression on a paper for the purpose of verification whether he had signed on the plaint and on the vakalat or not. The court may not insist the first plaintiff to give evidence, but the Court may ascertain the first plaintiff whether he has signed on the plaint and vakalat and may direct to subscribe his signature or thumb impression on a paper for the purpose of verification whether he had signed on the plaint and on the vakalat or not. Oral examination and obtaining of signature or thumb impression can be done by examining the first plaintiff to that limited extent only. It is the discretionary power of the Court and the discretionary powers of the Court have to be exercise to meet the ends of justice and to ascertain the truth. With the above observations, the civil revision petition is allowed. Consequently I.A.No.861 of 2009 in O.S.No.1463 of 2004 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, stands allowed. No order as to costs.