The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that a witness deposing for himself and others with a common defence cannot be rejected solely on this basis. The court emphasized that the order of examination among parties of the same class is not strictly regulated by law, and as long as the evidence is trustworthy, it cannot be disregarded.
The court was hearing a Civil Revision Petition challenging the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, which dismissed the petitioner’s plea in a suit for permanent injunction. The petitioner argued that Defendant No. 1's affidavit should be rejected because he testified both for himself and on behalf of Defendant No. 3. The High Court, however, upheld the trial court’s order and dismissed the plea.
Court’s Rationale and Legal Framework
During the trial, the third defendant was examined first and stated in his examination-in-chief that he was deposing for himself and also for Defendants 1 and 2. Subsequently, Defendant No. 1 filed his affidavit, stating that he was testifying both for himself and for the other two defendants. The plaintiff contested this, claiming such a practice was not legally permissible.
Read Also:- Andhra Pradesh HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Sexual Harassment Case, Citing Investigation Needs
Justice B.S. Bhanumathi, in her ruling, referenced Order XVIII, Rules 1, 3, and 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which govern the order of witness examination:
"It is a practice to first examine those who share a common defence before those who oppose. Order XVIII, Rule 3A states that a party cannot be examined after their witness has been examined without permission from the court. However, such permission can be granted even after the examination of the witness but before the examination of the party."
The court clarified that even if the third defendant was examined before the first defendant, there was no legal impediment in allowing the first defendant to testify later, as they shared a common defence.
"Just because a witness provides evidence not only for themselves but also for others does not make their testimony invalid. Except for the limited restriction under Rule 3A, there is no provision in the CPC barring a party from presenting evidence."
Evidentiary Standards and Quality of Testimony
The court also reiterated the fundamental principle of evidence law that the credibility of evidence depends on its quality, not its quantity.
"A fact can be proved by examining a single witness or presenting a document. The law does not prescribe the number of witnesses required. If a witness’s testimony is credible, it is sufficient to prove a fact. While corroboration enhances credibility, it is not mandatory."
Read Also:- Supreme Court Grants Bail to YSRCP Leaders in TDP Office and Naidu Residence Attack Cases
The court cited Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and its equivalent provision in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, stating:
"A fact is said to be proved when, after evaluating the matter, the court either believes in its existence or considers it so probable that a prudent person would act on the assumption of its existence."
Finding no legal irregularity in the trial court’s ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition. It held that since the defendants had a common defence, there was no bar against multiple defendants providing testimony, even if one had already deposed on behalf of the others.
Case title: Kote Krishnudu v. Mandleam Subba Reddy and Others
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1478/2024
