(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the fair and final order dated 11-12- 2024 passed in IA.No.8 of 2024 in OS.No.95 of 2020, on the file of the Prl.Dist.Munsif Court, Namakkal.)

This Civil Revision Petition (CRP) has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Namakkal, in I.A.No.8 of 2024 in O.S.No.95 of 2020, dated 11.12.2024. In the aforesaid order, the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking to examine his son in place of him as a witness has been allowed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that erroneously the impugned order has been passed, as, under Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the son cannot be substituted to give evidence on behalf of his father, respondent/plaintiff. He drew the attention of this Court to the following authorities in support of his contention that the trial Court has committed an error in substituting the son of the respondent/plaintiff to depose on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff as a witness.

               (a) Nilima Das Gupta Vs. Abdur Rouf [CDJ 2025 SC 1406];

               (b) Balaselvi Vs. Adhimoolam [CDJ 2013 MHC 1760] and

               (c) Y.Kiranmayee Vs. D.Rukminamma [CDJ 2024 APHC 964].

3. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that Section 120 of the India Evidence Act, 1872, has no applicability to the case on hand. He would submit that only in case of privilege communication, Section 120 gets attracted. He would further submit that the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners referred to supra do no prevent the son of the respondent/plaintiff being examined as a witness to support the case of the respondent/plaintiff. He would submit that only due to the health conditions of the respondent/plaintiff, his son had to be examined as a witness to support the case of the respondent/plaintiff.

4. Even in one of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Y.Kiranmayee Vs. D.Rukminamma [CDJ 2024 APHC 964], the Andhra Pradesh High Court had permitted the son to be examined as a witness, but, has made it clear that he cannot be examined in the place of his mother, but, can be examined as a witness independently to support the case of his mother.

5. The learned Senior counsel for the respondent/plaintiff drew the attention of this court to Order XVIII Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), and submitted before this Court during the course of his submissions that if the respondent/plaintiff’s son is being examined as a witness on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, the respondent/plaintiff will have to obtain leave of the court, if in case the respondent/plaintiff seeks to be examined as a witness at a later stage. Order XVIII Rule 3-A CPC reads as follows:-

3-A. Party to appear before other witnesses. --- Where a party himself wishes to appear as a witness, he shall so appear before any other witness on his behalf has been examined, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, permits him to appear as his own witness at a later stage.

6. Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners only stipulates, who are competent witnesses, when in cases where a party does not depose by himself as a witness. Section 120 stipulates that in all civil proceedings, the parties to a suit, as well as their spouses, shall be competent witnesses. It only talks about competency of witnesses. It does not prohibit any other party to depose as a witness to support the case of one of the parties to the suit. That is the reason why the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Y.Kiranmayee’s case (cited supra), where the son was allowed to depose as a witness on behalf of his mother, modified the impugned order therein by permitting the son to be examined as a witness to support the case of his mother, but, was not allowed to substitute as a witness in place of his mother. A party to the suit cannot be left remediless in case he is unable to be examined as a witness on account of his medical condition or on account of any other reason.

7. By applying the same yardstick adopted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the aforesaid decision involving a similar situation, wherein also a similar kind of impugned order was challenged, this Court allows Mr.Gopinath, the son of the respondent/plaintiff, to be examined as a witness to support the case of the respondent/plaintiff, but not in place of the respondent/plaintiff. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to the extent mentioned above, and this Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. No Costs. CMP.No.15665 of 2025 is closed.