JUDGMENT : 1. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is being invoked for setting aside the order dated 29.03.2016 (for brevity 'impugned order') passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jammu (for brevity 'trial court'), in case titled Smt. Sureshta Gupta vs. Prithvi Raj Goel. 2. Before adverting to the grounds urged in the petition for quashment of the impugned order a brief background of the facts as stated in the petition reveals that a civil suit for recovery of compensation on account of arrears of rent qua a Shop situated at Amar Market, Raghunath Bazar, Jammu as well as possession thereof came to be filed by the plaintiff-petitioner herein against the defendant-respondent herein. 3. It is being stated that upon filing of written statement to the said suit by the defendant-respondent herein, the trial court framed issues based upon the pleadings of the parties. The plaintiff-petitioner herein states to have got the knowledge that her counsel despite having availed number of opportunities did not inform her about of leading evidence in the case and that upon engaging a new counsel on 19.02.2016, the trial court directed the plaintiff-petitioner herein to lead evidence, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3000/- earlier imposed upon the plaintiff-petitioner herein. The plaintiff-petitioner herein is stated to have filed affidavits of her witnesses on 29.03.2016, but could not file evidence affidavit of her person on account of ailment and being bed ridden. The trial court on 29.03.2016, thus, is stated to have closed the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner herein in terms of the impugned order. 4. The impugned order is contended to have been passed by the trial court against the facts and law inasmuch as, without considering the request of the counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner herein that the plaintiff-petitioner herein was seriously ill on the said date and, as such, could not appear as her own witness. Further the impugned order is contended to have been passed by the trial court without appreciating the legal aspects governing the issue and without looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Per contra, respondent in his objections has resisted and controverted the contentions raised and grounds urged by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the petition is not maintainable inasmuch as, the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. 5. Per contra, respondent in his objections has resisted and controverted the contentions raised and grounds urged by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the petition is not maintainable inasmuch as, the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. It is being contended in the objections that from the date of institution of the suit in the year 2005, the case has remained pending for the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner herein and that the impugned order has been passed validly and legally by the trial court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Record reveals that admittedly, the plaintiff-petitioner herein has not been prompt in leading evidence in support of her case, yet the trial court has allowed the plaintiff-petitioner herein in terms of various orders, of course, subject to the payment of costs to lead evidence and consequently, which the plaintiff-petitioner herein has adduced by way of affidavits up till 29.03.2016. The plaintiff-petitioner however admittedly has not appeared as her own witness. As to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff-petitioner herein can appear as her own witness at a later stage or not is to be considered in the light of the provisions of Order 18 Rule 3-A CPC being relevant and germane herein. Order 18 Rule 3-A CPC, thus is extracted and reproduced hereunder:- "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." 8. Although, the plaintiff-petitioner herein has not sought a leave from the trial court to appear as her own witness at a later stage, yet the reasons expressed in the instant petition, prima facie seems to be convincing and credible, whereunder the plaintiff-petitioner herein prays for appearance of her own witness after her other witnesses appeared. 9. The principle and proposition in regard to order 18 Rule 3-A stands laid down by a coordinate Bench of this Court in case titled Ali Mohd. 9. The principle and proposition in regard to order 18 Rule 3-A stands laid down by a coordinate Bench of this Court in case titled Ali Mohd. Khanday and another vs. State of J&K and others, 2009 (3) JKJ 453 [HC], while taking into account various judgments of this Court and Apex Court wherein at para 11 following is noticed. "As per Rule 3-A, plaintiff can be permitted to appear as his own witness at later stage. Later stage includes three stages of the suit i.e., firstly, upto the closure stage of the evidence of the plaintiff; secondly, when the plaintiff has opted to produce the evidence on certain issues after production of the evidence by the defendants then upto the stage plaintiff produce evidence; thirdly, when the plaintiff has produced the witness and defendant has also produced the witness, then finally, when the plaintiff in rebuttal has produced the witness generally on the whole case, upto closure of the said evidence." 10. Indisputably what emerges from the record is that the defendant -respondent herein is yet to lead his evidence in the matter in rebuttal and thus, no prejudice much less a grave would be caused to the defendant-respondent herein in the event plaintiff/petitioner is allowed to appear as her own witness as the respondent would have a chance to cross-examine the petitioner as also to lead evidence in rebuttal as well. The objection raised in this regard by the defendant-respondent herein thus pales into insignificance. 11. The question of maintainability raised by the respondent herein also does not appear to be appealing in view of law laid down by the Apex Court qua supervisory jurisdiction in case titled Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs. Rajinder Shankar Patil, reported in 2010 (8) SCC 329 , wherein besides other principles, following have been laid down at clause (g) and (i) of paragraph No. 62. "(g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. (i) High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. (i) High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. It has been declared a part of the basic structure of the Constitution by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & others, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 and therefore abridgement by a Constitutional amendment is also very doubtful." 12. The Apex Court further in Radhey Shyam and Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors., reported in 2015 (5) SCC 423 , at paragraph 29 has provided as under, while considering the view taken by the Apex Court in case titled as Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and others, reported in 2003 (6) SCC 675 qua the provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution : "Accordingly, we answer the question referred as follows: (i) Judicial orders of civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution; (ii) Jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from jurisdiction from jurisdiction under Article 226. Contrary view in Surya Dev Rai is overruled." 13. Having regard to what has been observed and considered above, to secure the ends of justice and also in order to arrive at a just conclusion in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is warranted and consequently the impugned order dated 29.03.2016, insofar as it closes the right and in essence precludes the petitioner herein from appearing as her own witness in the case is set aside. The petitioner herein is directed to appear as her own witness before the trial court on the next date of hearing which shall be the last and final opportunity. 14. Parties to appear before the trial court on 16th August, 2021. 15. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the above said terms.