2022 (11) TMI 1300 - HC - Income Tax

Party to writ petition - WP filed by the appellant espousing the cause of his wife for a simple mandamus - specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's wife has filed a suit against one P.M.Elavarasan - Parties to civil suit, and their wives or husbands. Husband or wife of person under criminal trial - suits have been transferred to the IV Additional City Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai - single Judge, after considering the arguments, at the time of admission, has dismissed the writ petition and also imposed costs of on the ground that neither the petitioner's wife nor the said Ilavarasan has been made a party in the said writ petition - HELD THAT - Only in a proceeding initiated before a Court of law or any authority, the appellant could appear and depose evidence on behalf of his wife. Therefore, the Writ Petition could not have been filed by the appellant as a witness of his wife. It was for the appellant's wife to have filed the said Writ Petition after impleading the proper and necessary parties. We are in agreement with the views expressed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition. Therefore, there is no merit in the present Writ Appeal. That apart, the appellant cannot rely on Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to justify in filing of the Writ Petition Only in a proceeding initiated before a Court of law or any authority, the appellant could appear and depose evidence on behalf of his wife. Therefore, the Writ Petition could not have been filed by the appellant as a witness of his wife. It was for the appellant's wife to have filed the said Writ Petition after impleading the proper and necessary parties. We are therefore inclined to dismiss this Writ Appeal. We however expunge the cost imposed on the appellant, considering the fact that the appellant's wife may have a case against the said P.M.Ilavarasan.

Summary

Issues:
- Writ Appeal against a dismissal order in a writ petition concerning representation for legal action against a third party.
- Appellant's reliance on Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to justify filing the Writ Petition.
- Appellant's standing as a witness in civil proceedings and the necessity for proper parties to file the Writ Petition.

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed a Writ Appeal challenging the dismissal order of a writ petition seeking a mandamus for legal action against a third party. The original writ petition was filed by the appellant on behalf of his wife, who had initiated a suit against the third party. The suits were transferred to the IV Additional City Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the grounds that neither the petitioner's wife nor the third party were parties to the petition, deeming it an attempt to pursue a private grievance under the guise of a good citizen.

2. The Writ Appeal argued the appellant's reliance on Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to justify filing the Writ Petition. Section 120 allows parties to civil suits, and their spouses, to be competent witnesses in civil proceedings. The court, however, clarified that the appellant, as the husband, could only appear and depose evidence on behalf of his wife in a proceeding initiated before a court of law. Therefore, the Writ Petition could not have been filed by the appellant as a witness of his wife, emphasizing the necessity for the appellant's wife to file the petition after impleading the proper parties.

3. The High Court, comprising of two judges, affirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition and subsequently the Writ Appeal. The court emphasized that the appellant's wife should have been the one to file the Writ Petition after impleading the necessary parties. The court expunged the cost imposed on the appellant, considering the possibility of the appellant's wife having a case against the third party. The City Civil Judge was directed to expedite the proceedings and dispose of the cases within twelve months from the date of receipt of the judgment.

4. In conclusion, the Writ Appeal was dismissed without costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper party representation in legal proceedings and clarified the limitations of relying on specific legal provisions to justify the initiation of writ petitions.