http://youtube.com/post/UgkxAg7kpujWvtL21sksgS9DADuOI7cxFU0c?si=3B8lW4sX0GKhDmRc [18/06, 18:19] sekarreporter1: [18/06, 18:17] sekarreporter1: https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-judge-expected-to-engage-with-bar-not-sit-like-sphinx-538236 [18/06, 18:17] sekarreporter1: The Madras High Court recently observed that the Indian Evidence Act enables a judge to ask any question that he pleases during trial with respect to any relevant or irrelevant fact during the trial. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 269] The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima held

[18/06, 18:19] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxAg7kpujWvtL21sksgS9DADuOI7cxFU0c?si=3B8lW4sX0GKhDmRc
[18/06, 18:19] sekarreporter1: [18/06, 18:17] sekarreporter1: https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-judge-expected-to-engage-with-bar-not-sit-like-sphinx-538236
[18/06, 18:17] sekarreporter1: The Madras High Court recently observed that the Indian Evidence Act enables a judge to ask any question that he pleases during trial with respect to any relevant or irrelevant fact during the trial. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 269]

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima held that the judge is obliged to exercise the sweeping power available to him to pose questions and clear out any suspicion that he has. The court added that the judge should not sit like a sphinx during trial but is expected to engage with the bar through dialogue. The court added that this exercise is also an important facet of the principle of natural justice.

“ Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 enables the Judge to ask any question he pleases, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties about any fact relevant or irrelevant and may order the production of any document or thing. This cannot be objected. When such a sweeping power was available, the trial Judge was obliged to have exercised the same,” the court said.
“ The Judge should not sit like a sphinx. He must engage in a dialogue with the Bar. He must pose questions to the witness to disabuse his mind of lingering suspicions. This is also a facet of the principles of natural justice. The litigant cannot be taken by surprise. Our adjudicatory system contemplates laying all cards on the table. There can be no ace up the Judge’s sleeve. The outcome of the judgment may be a bolt from the blue but its substance must not,” the court added.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by Palanikumar against an order of the Additional District Judge, Madurai. Palanikumar had originally filed a suit in for recovery of a sum of Rs 31,54,167 along with an interest of 12% per annum.

Palanikumar submitted that he had given a loan of Rs 25,00,000 to the defendant Selvi on June 5, 2015. The defendant had executed a promissory note in return and had agreed to replay the amount with an interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The defendant also deposited the original sale deed of her property with Palanikumar. When the amount remained unpaid, Palanikumar filed the suit for recovery of money.

The defendant did not file any written statement or adduce evidence. The defendant also did not cross-examine Palanikumar. However, the court dismissed the plea, observing that Palanikumar could not have means to advance such a huge loan to the defendant.

The court observed that when the court had doubts regarding Palanikumar’s capacity to lend such a huge sum, it should have posed questions to the party to ascertain the truth. The court noted that the trial court had rendered an adverse finding that Palanikumar did not have the capacity to lend money, without any evidence.

The court noted that though the defendant had not filed written statement or adduced evidence, in her reply to the legal notice sent by Palanikumar, she had not denied the transaction or her signature on the promissory note.

Thus, noting that the trial court’s approach was utterly unsatisfactory and reasons were unsustainable, the court was inclined to interfere with the same. The court thus allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Raghuvaran Gopalan for Mr. L. Siva

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. J. Lawrance

Case Title: P Palanikumar v R Selvi

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 269

Case No: A.S.(MD)No.162 of 2018