AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 214 wordsT.N. Vallinayagam, J.-The order impugned in this revision petition is one wherein the Trial Court has refused to permit the petitioner to examine the Counsel who attested the Will as attesting witness. In any event, now it is brought to my notice that the Counsel has since retired and after retirement certainly he can become the witness and therefore, there can be no prohibition for the same.
Sri M. Shivappa, learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon the dictum of Madras High Court in, In re. C.S. Venkatachariar, First Grade Pleader and R.S. Second Grade Pleader, AIR 1942 Mad. 691, to the following effect:
"A person who is appearing as Counsel should not give evidence as a witness. If in the course of the proceedings it is discovered that he is in a position to give evidence and it is desirable that he should do so, his proper course is to retire from the case in his professional capacity".
In any event, the Counsel has retired from the field and there can be no prohibition for getting himself examined.
In this view, this revision petition is allowed. The order impugned is set aside and it is open to the plaintiff to examine the Counsel of any other witness whom he choses.