Introduction:
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Kote Krishnudu v. Mandleam Subba Reddy and Others [Civil Revision Petition No. 1478/2024], ruled that there is no absolute restriction on the order in which defendants of the same class may give evidence. The case was presided over by Justice B.S. Bhanumathi, who reaffirmed that the sequence of witness examination is guided by procedural practice but is not a rigid rule. The petitioner (plaintiff) had challenged the affidavit of the first defendant on the ground that he could not depose for himself and the third defendant, as the latter had already been examined first. The trial court had dismissed the petitioner’s plea, reasoning that all defendants had a common defence and that there was no procedural bar against multiple defendants giving evidence. The High Court upheld this view, emphasizing that the credibility of evidence matters more than its quantity and that no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) prevents parties from testifying on behalf of co-defendants. The Court reiterated that a fact can be proved by a single witness if found trustworthy and that corroboration, while helpful, is not a legal necessity. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition, affirming that procedural technicalities should not override substantive justice.
The dispute arose when the plaintiff, Kote Krishnudu, filed a suit for a permanent injunction, asserting his legal rights against the respondents, including Mandleam Subba Reddy and others. During the trial, the third defendant testified first, stating that he was deposing for himself and also on behalf of the first and second defendants. Subsequently, the first defendant sought to present his testimony, declaring that he was doing so not only for himself but for the second and third defendants as well. The plaintiff objected to this, contending that such an approach was not recognized under the law and that the affidavit of the first defendant should be dismissed. The trial court, however, rejected the petitioner’s plea, reasoning that since all the defendants shared a common defence, there was no procedural violation in multiple defendants testifying. The plaintiff then moved the High Court through a Civil Revision Petition, challenging the trial court’s decision.
Arguments:
The petitioner argued that the affidavit of the first defendant should be dismissed because he could not legally testify on behalf of another defendant after that defendant had already given evidence. He claimed that such a sequence of witness examination was not permissible under procedural law and that allowing it would create uncertainty in legal proceedings. The petitioner relied on Order XVIII, Rule 3A of the CPC, which mandates that a party wishing to testify as a witness must do so before other witnesses on his behalf have been examined unless permitted by the Court. He contended that since the third defendant had testified first, the first defendant’s subsequent affidavit was procedurally flawed and should not be admitted as evidence.
On the other hand, the respondents argued that there was no strict procedural rule barring multiple defendants from testifying, especially when they shared a common defence. They pointed out that Order XVIII, Rules 1 and 3 of the CPC allow for flexibility in the order of witness examination. Rule 1 grants the plaintiff the right to begin the case unless the defendant admits the facts but disputes the relief sought. Rule 3 provides that a party beginning a case may either present all its evidence initially or reserve some for rebuttal. The respondents contended that the CPC does not impose an absolute bar on defendants testifying in a particular sequence. They also relied on judicial precedents affirming that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive justice.
Judgement:
The Andhra Pradesh High Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the CPC and the Indian Evidence Act to determine whether the trial court had erred in rejecting the plaintiff’s plea. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi observed that while procedural law suggests that those on the same side should ideally testify in a particular order, there is no statutory provision making it mandatory. The Court pointed out that Order XVIII, Rule 3A does restrict a party from testifying after other witnesses on his behalf, but it also allows for exceptions where the Court grants permission. In this case, since the defendants had a common defence and the first defendant was testifying not only for himself but in support of the co-defendants, there was no violation of procedural law.
The Court further emphasized that the credibility of the evidence is determined by its quality, not quantity. It referred to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872, which states that a fact is said to be proved when the Court either believes in its existence or considers it so probable that a prudent person would act upon it. The Court also cited Section 2 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which governs the manner of proving facts and allows for evidence to be established either through witness testimony or documentary proof. The Court held that since no rule prohibits multiple defendants from giving evidence, and since the defendants had a shared defence, the trial court’s decision was legally sound.
In reaffirming settled legal principles, the High Court ruled that the number of witnesses does not determine the truthfulness of a fact. A fact can be proved by a single witness if the testimony is credible, while corroboration through additional witnesses merely strengthens the case. The Court explained that while multiple witnesses are often examined to eliminate doubt, the absence of corroboration does not automatically weaken a party’s case. The Court reiterated that procedural rules should not be interpreted rigidly to deny a party the opportunity to present its evidence.
Ultimately, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the trial court’s decision. It held that procedural formalities must not obstruct the fair presentation of evidence, especially when all parties are allowed to challenge and cross-examine witnesses. The ruling underscores that in cases involving multiple defendants with a common defence, the strict sequencing of witness examination is not an absolute requirement under the CPC.