JUDGMENT 1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dtd. 12/3/2021 passed in I.A. No.58 of 2021 in O.S. No.58 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Mummidivaram, filed by the defendant under Order XVIII Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') for granting permission to him to be examined as a witness. 2. Heard Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Rambabu Koppineedi, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the suit. 4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for the relief of the declaration of ABCD and EFGH marked portion of the plaint plan, for the relief of a mandatory injunction to remove the unauthorised formation of the red metal gravel on ground, and also for permanent injunction. Pending suit, the defendant filed I.A. No.512 of 2019 under Order XVIII Rule 3-A under Sec. 151 CPC to permit his younger brother by name Sri Guddati Pallamraju to be examined on behalf of the defendant as D.W.1 on the ground that the defendant was suffering from liver infection and was taking treatment for one year by then and so he was unable to give evidence, and further that his brother knows the facts of the case and physical features of the property and is willing to give the evidence on his behalf. The petition was allowed and the brother of the defendant was examined as D.W.1. Thereafter, the defendant filed the present petition in I.A. No.58 of 2021 seeking permission to examine himself as a witness on his behalf as D.W.2 on the ground that recently the evidence of D.W.1 was closed and he recovered his health and is able to give evidence and that he is a fit person to bring real facts before the Court to protect his rights over the property and that unless he is given permission, he would lose his case. 5. 5. The petition was opposed by the plaintiff by filing a counter denying the contents of the affidavit and further stating that the application was filed at a belated stage and that when the matter was posted for adducing evidence on the defendant's side, the defendant did not take steps to reserve his right to give evidence, but straight away examined his brother as D.W.1 and D.W.1 was cross-examined and now this application is filed intending to cover up the lacuna crept during the cross-examination of D.W.1 and therefore, if the petition is allowed, much prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff. 6. After hearing both parties, the trial Court allowed the petition, observing that the medical record placed by the defendant shows that he was discharged from the hospital after liver transplantation on 4/11/2019 and thereafter, D.W.1 was examined on 27/1/2021 and therefore, non-examination of the defendant at the initial stage is for a clear and convincing reason. Having been aggrieved by the order, the plaintiff filed this revision petition. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff submitted that the defendant ought to have sought permission to examine the witness before the party as a witness, however, in the earlier application he sought permission to examine his brother as a witness on his behalf and therefore, the present application is only to fill up the lacuna in the evidence stated in the cross-examination of D.W.1. In this regard, he submitted that D.W.1 stated in his cross-examination that his brother, i.e., defendant had given instructions for preparation of his (D.W.1's) affidavit and that he had put his signature on the affidavit, and further he stated that he had not gone through the documents filed in the suit. As such, he vehemently contended that at this juncture, if permission is granted to the defendant, he would fill up the gaps in the evidence. 8. Order XVIII Rule 3-A CPC is extracted hereunder: Order XVIII: Hearing of the suit and examination of witnesses Rule 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. 9. 9. Order XVIII, Rule 3-A CPC does not stipulate the stage at which such permission is to be granted, i.e., whether permission is required to be granted to the party before the examination of the witness or even after the examination of the witness. It is settled law that such permission can be accorded before or after examination of the witness also. However, while granting such permission, the Court must carefully examine the circumstances to avoid prejudice to any party. This view is fortified by the decision of this High Court in Devarapalli Pattabhi Ramaiah v. Davuluri Lakshmi Prasanna, 1998(2) ALD 783 (DB) wherein it was held at paragraphs 7, 9 and 11 as follows: "7. A reading of the above rule shows that it is in two parts, the first part of the rule creates a mandatory obligation on the litigant to examine himself as a witness before any other witness on his behalf is examined. If the rule were to end there, would have been no scope perhaps to interpret the rule except follow the letter of the rule. But the latter half of the rule provides power to the Court to permit deviation from the general principle enshrined in the first part and accord permission to the litigant for reasons to be recorded by the Court. As far as the second part is concerned, the rule is not very definite as to the point of time at which such permission can be accorded. 9. As against this decision, the respondents relied on Maguni Dei v. Gouranga Sahu, AIR 1978 Orissa 228, Kwality Restaurant v. Satindcr Khanna, Bolanath v. Kalipada, Pravesh Kumari v. Rishi Prasad, Swami Hari Harananda Giri v. Yogoda Satsangha Society of India, and K. Pranchis v. M. Lurdamma, whereunder it was held that the Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure is not an inflexible one and Court can permit a party to make an application at any stage of the trial and permit the party to examine himself as a witness notwithstanding the fact that such permission was not obtained prior to the commencement of the examination of the witnesses for that particular party. 11. 11. Number of judgments relied upon by the respondents' Counsel referred to above hold the view that there is no inflexible rule as to the point of time at which the permission of the Court can be accorded under Rule 3A of Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (sic) The safeguard against the abuse of the process is that the Court while according permission to depart from the general rule enshrined under Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure is required to record reasons and goes without saying that such reasons must be cogent and germane to the issue. Once the reasons are recorded, they are open to scrutiny by the appellate Courts." (underline is used for emphasis) 10. Again the same view is taken by this High Court in Garigipati Kesava Rao v. Prathipati Srilakshmi, 2006(3) ALT 596 wherein at paras 5, 7, 8 and 9 as follows: "5. At the first blush, it may appear from the Rule the permission to depose, at a later stage, must be secured before the commencement of the evidence, on behalf of the concerned party. However, the provision has been interpreted by this Court and several other Courts, in such a way, as to mean that the permission under Rule 3-A of Order 18 C.P.C. can be accorded, even at a later stage. 7. ... In this regard, it needs to be observed that two considerations would arise, whenever an application is filed under Rule 3-A of Order 18 C.P.C. The first is as to whether there was any justification for the party in not deposing as a witness, before other non-party witnesses were examined; and the second is as to whether the opportunity given to such a witness would be utilized to fill the lacunae, in the evidence of other witnesses examined on behalf of that party. 8. The satisfaction of the Court on the first requirement does not depend upon the plea raised by the opposite party. Even in the absence of any objection raised by the opposite party, the Court is under obligation to satisfy itself that there existed valid ground for the party in not deposing as a witness, at the relevant point of time. The finding recorded by the trial Court, in the instant case, in this regard, is correct and does not warrant any interference. 9. The finding recorded by the trial Court, in the instant case, in this regard, is correct and does not warrant any interference. 9. However, the occasion for the Court to express its view on the question as to whether the witness, if permitted under Rule 3-A of Order 18 C.P.C, would utilize the opportunity to fill the lacunae, would depend, upon the nature of objection or plea that may be raised by the opposite party. If an objection, in that regard, is raised, the Court would be under obligation to examine the nature of evidence that has already been recorded, and in a way, may impose certain restrictions, as to the purport of evidence, that can be adduced by such witness. Where however, the opposite party does not rise any objection, the Court cannot be said to be under obligation to deal with this aspect. ...." 11. In the present case, since the Court was convinced earlier as the defendant seriously suffered from physical ill-health due to liver problem, D.W.1 was permitted to be examined, and now the defendant was also permitted to be examined, as there is no serious dispute about the health condition of the defendant to give evidence. 12. Though the defendant earlier sought permission to examine D.W.1 on his behalf, what is permissible is to examine the person as a witness to depose about the facts within the knowledge of the witness, and no person can depose, as a substitute for a party, facts not within the knowledge of the witness but within the knowledge of the party. On the same principle, a GPA for a party is also permitted to depose similarly. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer the decision of the Supreme Court in Janaki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd.,2005(2) ALT 57 (SC) wherein at paras 17 and 21 held as below: "17. The aforesaid judgment was quoted with the approval in the case of Ram Prasad v. Hari Narain and Ors. . It was held that the word "acts" used in Rule 2 of Order III of the CPC does not include the act of power of attorney holder to appear as a witness on behalf of a party. The aforesaid judgment was quoted with the approval in the case of Ram Prasad v. Hari Narain and Ors. . It was held that the word "acts" used in Rule 2 of Order III of the CPC does not include the act of power of attorney holder to appear as a witness on behalf of a party. Power of attorney holder of a party can appear only as a witness in his personal capacity and whatever knowledge he has about the case he can state on oath but be cannot appear as a witness on behalf of the party in the capacity of that party. If the plaintiff is unable to appear in the court, a commission for recording his evidence may be issued under the relevant provisions of the CPC. 21. In the view that we have taken we hold that the appellants have failed to discharge the burden that they have contributed towards the purchase of property at 38, Koregaon Park, Pune from any independent source of income and failed to prove that they were co-owners of the property at 38, Koregaon Park, Pune. This being the core question, on this score alone, the appeal is liable to be dismissed." 13. This Court in K. Mallikarjuna Vara Prasad vs. K. Poornachander Rao and Ors., [2006(6)ALD333] referred the decision in Podelly Chinna Chinnanna v. Bandari Pedda Bhumanna and observed at para 12 as follows: "12. A Division Bench of this Court in Podelly Chinna Chinnanna v. Bandari Pedda Bhumanna [2004 (1) ALD 241], considered a similar question. Initially, the C.R.P. No. 4460 of 1999 was before a learned Single Judge, who referred the question to the Division Bench whether a person holding general power of attorney on behalf of party to the suit can be exempted as a witness on its behalf. The Division Bench answered the question as under: 'Therefore, the only requirement for a person to come into the witness box to speak in regard to any facts and circumstances of the case is that he should be competent enough to testify i.e., to speak. The competency as contemplated is a very wider in its connotation. There is distinctive feature between one who is said to be competent on behalf of the person to speak and another how far and to what extent the person can speak. The competency as contemplated is a very wider in its connotation. There is distinctive feature between one who is said to be competent on behalf of the person to speak and another how far and to what extent the person can speak. These two aspects cannot be mixed upto reject a person from entering the witness box. As long as one holds proper authority under a Power of Attorney or otherwise, he is fully competent to come as witness on behalf of the said party. The competency as provided for further gets extended under Sec. 120 thereof providing that in any civil proceedings the husband or wife of a party to a suit shall be a competent witness. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Power of Attorney holder cannot be said to be a incompetent as witness on behalf of the party/executant. Neither the decisions reported in Ramprasad's case (supra) or K. Bharathi's case (supra), considered these aspects and as such it has to be held that the aforesaid decision is not correct. It is thus held answering the reference that a Power of Attorney holder is a competent witness on behalf of the party/executant and further that the effect and relevancy of such evidence has to be considered from proper perspective on the facts and circumstances of each case'." 14. Therefore, when D.W.1 was examined earlier, though the defendant stated that his brother was to be examined on behalf of the defendant, the evidence given by D.W.1 can be considered only as a witness for the defendant, but not as a substitute for the defendant as a party. Therefore, on that ground, the permission in the present petition need not be refused. 15. Insofar as the contention that giving permission to the defendant would cause prejudice to the plaintiff as he is likely to fill up the lacuna in the evidence of D.W.1 is concerned, it is only the evidence of D.W.1 expressing ignorance about the contents of the documents filed in the case and also the preparation of the affidavit at the instructions of the defendant that have a material bearing on evaluating the veracity of the evidence of D.W.1. It is a matter of appreciation of evidence during the course of trial. It is a matter of appreciation of evidence during the course of trial. That does not prevent the defendant from giving his own evidence at this juncture because he was earlier, for reasons beyond his control prevented from being examined himself as a witness. If at all any evidence spoken by the defendant as a witness/ D.W.2 is likely to fill the lacunae in the evidence of D.W.1, again, it is a matter of appreciation of evidence by the Court while weighing the veracity of the evidence in that regard. As such, there is no error committed by the trial court in allowing the application. Hence, there is no merit to interfere with the order impugned in the revision. 16. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.