CRP/6506/2026 of Sivakumar Vs Tamilarasi on 9 October 2026

Order

These Civil Revision petitions have been filed against the fair and decretal orders passed in IA No.13 and 14 of 2026 in HMOP No.70 of 2018 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge Tiruchengode dated 16.06.2026, wherein the applications filed by the petitioner to reopen the respondent’s side evidence and to examine one Balamuguran as a witness on the side of the respondent came to be rejected by the Court below.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and carefully perused the materials available on record as well as the orders passed by the Court below.

3. The respondent filed HMOP No.70 of 2018 seeking for the relief of dissolution of marriage. The petition was at the stage of final hearing. At that stage, applications came to be filed by the petitioner for reopening respondent’s side evidence and to examine one Balamurugan as a witness on the side of the respondent. These applications came to be dismissed by the Court below on the ground that there was enormous delay in filing the applications and that the said Balamurugan was an Advocate, who had spoken with both the parties and therefore, he cannot be called as a witness in this case in view of bar under section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act. Aggrieved by the said order, these Civil Revision Petitions have been filed before this Court.

4. In the considered view of this Court, Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act may not strictly apply to the facts of the present case since both parties have not engaged the counsel, who is sought to be brought in as a witness. However, the fact remains that even in the affidavit filed in support of the applications, the petitioner specifically states as follows :-

மேற்படிவழக்கில்எனதுதரப்புச்சாட்சியாகஎனக்கும், எதிர்மனுதாரருக்கும்

சமரசம்செய்து,

நல்லஅறிவுரை வழங்கியஎங்கள்ஊரைச்சேர்ந்தவழக்கறிஞர் எஸ். எம். பாலமுருகன்,

கும்பகோ ணம்அவர்களை எனதுதரப்புச்சாட்சியாக

விசாரணை செய்யஅனுமதிஅளித்துஉத்தரவிடவே ண்டுமாய்தாழ்மையுடன் பிரார்த்திக்கிறேன்.

5. If the said Balamurugan had spoken with both parties in order to resolve the dispute amicably, such a person should not be called as a witness to the Court since he has attempted to mediate between the parties and both parties would have spoken about various facts based on the confidence reposed on the said Balamurugan. If this witness is called to the Court, certainly it will cause

N.ANAND VENKATESH J. RKA prejudice to the other party. Normally, a mediator should not be called to the Court to depose as witness since both parties would have revealed many facts to the mediator and it will not be in the interest of justice to call the said mediator to Court and make him reveal all the facts. This defeats the very object of confidentiality that is involved, when a person acts as a Mediator.

6. In the light of the above discussion, even though this Court is not able to find that the delay was caused by the petitioner, the summoning of the said Balamurugan, who acted as a Mediator is certainly not sustainable.

7. In view of the above, the order passed by the Court below is sustained and these Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 08-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKA To The Additional Subordinate Judge Tiruchengode CRP No. 6506 and 6507 of 2026