Ayyasami Gounder and Others vs T.S. Palanisami Gounder

V. Ratnam, J.—This civil revision petition at the instance of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 1146 of 1980 District Munsifs Court, Coimbatore, has been preferred against the order passed by the Court below, on an application taken out by the respondent herein, the 2nd defendant in O.S.1146 of 1980, under Order 18, Rule 3-A, CPC for permitting the respondent herein to be examined as a witness. In O.S. No. 1146 of 1980 the petitioners had prayed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent and two others from obstructing the user of the suit cart track. In that suit, the witness on behalf of the petitioners were examined and the evidence on their side was closed on 12-4-1987. The examination of the witness on behalf of the respondent and others was commenced and others was commenced on 17-6-1987. On 28-10-1987, another witness was examined and his examination was also completed on 7-1-1988. A third witness was examined on 5-4-1988 and his examination was also completed on 13-6-1988. It is not in dispute that among the witnesses so examined, there were witnesses other than the parties to the suit. While matters stood of 1988 under Order 18, Rule 3A of the Code praying that he should be permitted to be examined as a witness. In the affidavit filed by the respondent herein in support of that application, it was stated that through he is the second defendant in O.S. No. 1146 of. 1980 and not a party to another suit. O.S. No. 1237 of 1980, and he had not filed any application earlier for his examination at a later stage of proceedings he should be permitted to examine himself as the objection raised by the petitioners unit that he should be permitted to be so examined is only purely procedural.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners herein, they raised the objection that the respondent should have sought later before the commencement of the examination permission of the Court for his examination of the other witnesses and as such permission had not been obtained it cannot be granted, as that would enable the respondent to violate the salutary provisions of Order 18, Rule 3A of the Code. The petitioners also raised the objection that the respondent had been present in Court throughout the examination of the other witnesses and had also instructed counsel and having thus deliberately allowed other witnesses to be examined, the respondent cannot seek the permission of the Court to examine himself at a later stage. Claiming that the provisions of Order 18, Rule 3A of the Code are mandatory and should be complied with in letter and spirit, the petitioners prayed for the dismissal of that application.

The learned District Munsif, who enquired into this application, took the view that as the petitioners had not made out that the respondent in the course of his examination, if permitted to be later examined, is likely to fill up the lacunae in the evidence of the other witnesses, he should be permitted to be examined as a witness, as prayed for by him. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this civil revision petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended, referring to Order 18, Rule 3-A of the Code introduced by Act 104 of 1976, that the object behind the introduction of the rule is that the party to the suit should be examined first before the other witnesses on his behalf are examined, and if such a party is desirous of examining himself later, it could be done only if the Court permits him to do so in regard to which permission should be applied for and obtained prior to the commencement of the examination of the witnesses on behalf of the party seeking such permission. It was also further submitted that the Court below in the course of its order has not given reasons for the non examination of the respondent herein at an earlier stage or for his examination at a later stage and had allowed the application only on the ground that the petitioners had not established that the respondent is likely to fill up the gaps or lacunae in the evidence of the other witnesses, which is erroneous.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent contended that under Order 18, Rule 3A of the Code, it is not incumbent upon a party to a suit to seek the permission of the Court for his examination later, even before the commencement of the evidence on his side and the provision being procedural, should be so interpreted as to subserve the cause of justice rather than defeat it. Reliance in this connection was placed on several decisions.

Order 18, Rule 3-A of the Code was introduced by Act 104 of f976, pursuant to the recommendations in the 54th Report of the Law Commission and the provision was intended to prevent the persistent and notorious practice indulged in by litigants in examining other witnesses first and later covering up the gaps and lacunae in such evidence, by the examination of the parties themselves, by the examination of the parties themselves later, first and the parties should be examined to substantiate the case. A plain reading of the provision indicates that the party should be examined first and the other witnesses later, and if other witnesses are to be examined first and the parties should be examined the Court should permit the party to so appear as a witness at a later stage. When the object behind the introduction of Order 18, Rule 3A of the Code is to put an end to the mal-practices indulged in by the litigants, referred to earlier, it is obvious that in cases where the party desires to examine himself at a later stage, he should prior to the commencement of the evidence on his side, make an application in that behalf before the Court for such later examination. Otherwise, Order 18. Rule 3A of the Code will be honoured more in its breach, rather than in its observance. When the provision contemplates the obtaining of permission from the Court for the later examination of a party as a witness, it is clear that such permission should be applied for and sought prior to the commencement at the evidence on the side of the party so seeking permission, as the non-obtaining of such permission at that stage would result in a breach of Order 18, Rule 3A of the Code and to say that Order 18, Rule 3A of the Code could be resorted to even after the examination of other witnesses on behalf of the party to the suit, would be to render that provision a dead letter. The resort to Order 18, Rule 3A of the Code, after other witnesses are examined on behalf of a party seeking permission for the examination of a party thereafter, would defeat the very purpose of the rule that the party should be examined first as a witness and other witnesses later. The requirement that the party shall appear before any other witness on his behalf has been examined, shows that in all cases, the party should be examined first before the other witnesses and only in very exceptional cases, subject to the grant of permission by Court, he could be permitted to appear as a witness at a later stage. The provision, enabling the party to appear as a witness at a later stage, subject to orders of Court, and the requirement that he shall appear before any other witness later, should be applied for is when the party himself should appear as a witness and that according to the rule, should be before other witnesses are examined. Considering the object with which Order 18, Rule 3A of the Code has been introduced, it is clear that permission from the Court for the examination of a party at a later stage, should be sought for and obtained before the commencement of the examination of other witnesses on behalf of the party seeking such permission and not later. Though the provision under Order 18, Rule 3-A of the Code does not in terms indicate the stage at which such an application had not been made and permission obtained prior to the examination of the witnesses on behalf of the respondent and therefore, the respondent could not have been permitted to come in at a later stage as a party witness.

Now, adverting to the reasons given by the Court below it is seen that it has proceeded only on the footing that the petitioners have not made out that by the respondent being permitted to be examined as a witness, he is likely to fill up the gaps or missing links in the evidence already tendered by the other witnesses on his side. What is relevant under Order 18. Rule 3A of the Code is that the court should be satisfied that the party who should appear as a witness on his behalf before the other witnesses in support of his case are examined, is unable to appear and give evidence in support of his case. The reasons required to be recorded relate to this and if the Court is satisfied with reference to the reasons given by the party as to why he should be permitted to appear as a witness at a later stage, then the permission can be granted by the Court, subject to the recording of reasons in that regard. In this case, as noticed earlier, prior to the commencement of the evidence on behalf of the respondent, no permission was sought from Court for the examination of the respondent later as a witness, though he is party to the suit. Even on the assumption that the respondent was entitled to file such an application seeking permission after the examination of the other witnesses, it is seen that the reasons given by the respondents are plainly unacceptable. Nothing is mentioned in the affidavit as to why the respondent could not examine himself at the time of the commencement of the evidence on his behalf and why it became necessary for him to examine himself at a later stage. In the absence of any reasons in the affidavit filed by the respondent the Court below was in error in granting such permission. The recording of the reasons contemplated under Order 18, Rule 3A of the Code must pertain to the circumstances, under which a party not appearing as a witness at the commencement of the evidence on his side seeks permission to examine himself at a later stage. The affidavit filed does not contain any acceptable or justifiable reasons. Further, in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioners, they have categorically stated that the respondent had been present in Court throughout the trial of the suit when the other witnesses on his side had been examined and had also instructed Counsel to examine other witnesses on his side. It is obvious therefore that the respondent had deliberately kept himself away from the witness box at the time of the commencement of the evidence of his behalf though present in Court, and such a person cannot certainly seek the assistance of Court under Order 18, Rule 3A of the Code in the form of permission to examine himself as a witness, at a later stage. The reason given by the Court below is that is had not been established by the petitioners that the respondent is likely, by his evidence, to plug the holes in the evidence of the other witnesses already examined on his side. As pointed out earlier, the Court should concern itself at time of considering the application under Order 18, Rule 3A of the Code, as to why the party to the suit is seeking to examine himself later and not whether if permitted to be examined at a later stage, he would or he would not fill up the gaps in the evidence of the other witnesses. The reason given by the Court below is, palpably wrong, and its order passed on such reasoning cannot at all be sustained. Though in the course of the arguments a reference to a large number of decisions was made, in the view taken above regarding the scope of Order 18, Rule 3-A of the Code and in the nature of the permission as well as the purpose for the statement of reasons to be recorded by the Court while granting permission, it is unnecessary to refer to those cases. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the Court below is set aside and I.A. No. 1130 of 1988 will stand dismissed. There will however, be no order as to costs.

Before parting with this case, the court wishes to place on record its appreciation of the assistance rendered by Sri R. Subramaniam who was appointed to act as amicus curiae and assist the Court.