Ravi vs Ramar on 11 October, 2007
The learned counsel for the revision petitioners also relied upon the observation of the Judgement in the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court reported in 2007 (6) MLJ 1119 in the matter of Ravi and another v. Ramar wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has held that the amendment was introduced with a view to ensure that the party examining himself as a witness at a later stage should not be permitted to fill-up the lacunae in the evidence adduced from his side. Where the Court comes to a conclusion that the party had deliberately with-held himself to be examined as a witness at a later stage with a view to fill-up the lacunae in the evidence, obviously permission cannot be granted to such a party to examine himself at a later stage. This is a relevant consideration where the application is filed, seeking permission to examine him at a later stage, either at the threshold of examination of other witnesses or subsequently after examination of all or some of the witnesses. The real test is to find out whether there was a genuine cause for which the party was not examined as a first witness.
He therefore submitted that in this case the specific case of the plaintiffs is that in a oral partition the property was allotted to the share of 4th plaintiff and the 7th plaintiff purchased the property from the 4th plaintiff and no attempt was made to examine 4th plaintiff from whom the 7th plaintiff purchased the property and the suit is for declaration that the 7th plaintiff is the owner of the property and therefore the attempt to examine the 7th plaintiff after the examination of PW3 and PW4 who are not parties to the suit is to fill-up the lacunae in the evidence at the later stage which has been deprecated by the Division Bench and therefore the lower Court ought not to have allowed the application filed by the 7th plaintiff.