IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 277 OF 2008 Between: Gadi Jagan Mohanarao ......petitioner AND Smt. Gadi Venkataramana and another ......Respondents The Court made the following:- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 277 OF 2008 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order of the Court below rejecting the defendants application I.A.No.905 of 2007. The said application was filed by the defendants for compelling the plaintiff to appear in person before the Court for the purpose of examining her. According to the defendants the plaintiff’s husband has been examined as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff, but he was unable to answer some of the questions in cross examination. The presence of the plaintiff is necessary. The application was therefore made under Order X Rule 4(1) r/w Order III Rule 1 and Section 151 C.P.C. The said application was dismissed by the Court below against which the present revision is preferred by defendant No.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though it is a suit for injunction plaintiff being a party ought to have been examined and the examination of her husband is no substitute for plaintiff’s examination. Learned counsel states that several questions in cross examination put to the husband of the plaintiff did not invoke any satisfactory answer and in order to fairly adjudicate it is necessary to examine the plaintiff. It is for that reason that the defendants had made an application to the Court below under the above provisions requesting the Court to direct the plaintiff to present herself for giving evidence. I am unable to appreciate the said contention for atleast two reasons. Firstly the defendant has no right to compel the plaintiff to appear in the suit and give evidence and secondly the provision of law i.e., Order X Rule 4 of C.P.C. as well as Order III Rule 1 of C.P.C applies at the stage of appearance of a party through pleader i.e., at initial stage of the suit. The said provision cannot be made use to compel the plaintiff to examine himself or herself. It is well settled that if party is not examined it is for the Court to draw appropriate inference as laid down by the Supreme Court in Vidhyadhar v. Mankikrao and another[1] wherein it is held that: “Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy Council beginning from the decision in Sardar Gurbaksha Singh v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1927 PC 230. This was followed by the Lahore High Court in Kirpa Singh v. Ajaipal Singh, AIR 1930 Lahore 1 and the Bombay High Court in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v. Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh, AIR 1931 Bombay 97. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat, AIR 1970 Madh Pra 225, also followed the Privy Council decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh’s case (AIR 1927 PC 230) (supra). The Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh v. Virender Nath, AIR 1971 Allahabad 29 held that if a party abstains from entering the witness box, it would give rise to an inference adverse against him. Similarly, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bhagwan Dass v. Bhishan Chand, AIR 1974 Punj and Har 7, drew a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box.” In view of that I do not see any error warranting correction by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The Court below shall proceed with the suit expeditiously as it is the suit of 2007. No order as to costs. ______________________ VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR, J Date: 17.06.2010 Ivd [1] AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 1441