Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 135 (AP)

Sagili Madhusudhana Reddy v. Nalband Hazeera

2019-07-17

T.RAJANI

body2019
ORDER : T. Rajani, J. 1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 18.6.2018, passed in IA No. 183 of 2018 in OS No. 31 of 2011 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Kadapa, by virtue of which the lower Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5-defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5, under Order XVIII Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), to eschew the chief-examination affidavit of the second plaintiff as PW 4. 2. Heard the Counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs and the Counsel for the respondents-defendants. 3. The issue involved in this revision is very simple and small. PW 1 is the first plaintiff, who was already examined and two witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs as PWs. 2 and 3. It is, at that point of time, second plaintiff filed her affidavit in lieu of her chief-examination as PW 4, without seeking permission of the Court. 4. The Counsel for the respondents submits that according to Order XVIII Rule 3-A of CPC, 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. Order XVIII Rule 3-A CPC is extracted hereunder for ready reference. Order XVIII : Hearing of the Suit and Examination of Witnesses 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. 5. In this case, it is evident that no such application was filed by the second plaintiff before examination of PWs. 2 and 3 on her behalf. Hence, she cannot be permitted to be examined as a witness. The Counsel for the respondents relies on the judgment in John Susheel Kale v. S. Devamjulu, 2011 (5) ALD 424 , wherein this Court held that the chief-examination of a party shall be eschewed, if the party was examined without permission, as mandated under Order XVIII Rule 3-A of CPC, is not obtained. 6. The Counsel for the respondents relies on the judgment in John Susheel Kale v. S. Devamjulu, 2011 (5) ALD 424 , wherein this Court held that the chief-examination of a party shall be eschewed, if the party was examined without permission, as mandated under Order XVIII Rule 3-A of CPC, is not obtained. 6. Hence, in view of the above, this Court opines that the impugned order needs no interference. 7. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.