AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nainar Sundaram, J.—This revision is directed against the order of the Court below permitting the plaintiff, the first-respondent herein, to
examine on commission a witness by name Mrs. D. Victor. In the application taken out in this behalf, the plaintiff pleaded that the said witness is
beyond the jurisdiction of the Court below, she being at Tirunelveli. However, when the application came up for hearing, a supplementary affidavit
was subscribed, wherein it was stated that she has come down to Alandur, but she is not medically fit to attend Court and depose. A medical
certificate was produced. The Court below, opining that the medical certificate could be accepted, has allowed the application. In this revision, Mr.
G. Rajagopalan, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, the concerned defendants in the suit, submits that his clients had no opportunity to make their
full say on the propriety of the court below accepting and acting upon the medical certificate. Learned Counsel for the petitioners says that the
medical certificate does not deserve any credence and if the doctor is examined, truth will come out that the witness is not so disabled medically as
not to attend the Court. I find that only in the supplemental affidavit, the plea of the witness being medically unfit has been put forth and a certificate
has been produced. It cannot be said the petitioners had adequate opportunity to make their say over this. In fairness and in justness, there should
be a proper enquiry on this question before the witness is permitted to abstain from Court and have her evidence recorded through commission.
The conduciveness of a witness being examined in a Court need not be over stressed. Of course, there could be exceptions, but the exception
must be properly made out. Under these circumstances, this revision is allowed and the matter is remitted to the file of the Court below for it to
examine the same afresh, permitting the parties to make their say on this question. Since there is a dispute with reference to the acceptability of the
medical certificate, produced by the first-respondent on this question, the Court shall summon the medical practitioner, who gave the certificate,
examine this aspect also before giving a decision one way or the other. This revision is allowed in the above terms. No costs. I am told that the suit
is part-heard. The Court below will expedite matters.