AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 4.12.2013 (Annexure P-7) whereby plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was allowed to appear as a witness. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No. 1 has filed suit through his attorney Som Parkash Mohan. The attorney of the plaintiff has already appeared in the witness box. However, now the plaintiff wants to himself appear in the witness box to fill up the lacuna in the case.
In the present case, respondent No. 1 has filed suit for ejectment and recovery of rent against the petitioner and her husband Indresh Mehndiratta. Respondent No. 1 sought to examine himself as a witness, although, his attorney had been examined as PW-1. Although, attorney has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff but the plaintiff cannot be stopped from appearing as a witness in his case. So far as the petitioner is concerned, she will get an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from the vice of illegality and calls for no interference.
Dismissed.