Balwant Singh @ Gola Singh vs Balwant and others

Present revision petition, at the hands of the plaintiff, filed under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated

27.03.2017 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby application of the

petitioner, praying for not permitting the defendants to depose as their

witnesses at this stage of the suit, was dismissed, allowing the defendants to

appear as their own witnesses, after examining six DWs.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

No doubt, the ideal situation, which should be adhered to and also

followed by one and all, is the one provided under Order 18 Rule 3A of the

Code of Civil Procedure (''CPC'' for short). As and when any party to the

litigation wishes to appear as his/her own witness, he/she should appear before

any other witness is examined on behalf of that party, unless the Court, for the

reasons to be recorded, permits such a party to appear as his/her own witness at

a later stage.

So far as the peculiar fact situation of the present case is concerned,

two defendants, who could not be examined earlier and are being sought to be

examined now, after examining six DWs, are of 77 years and 66 years

respectively, thus, both these defendants are senior citizens. Ideal situation

provided under Order 18 Rule 3A CPC apart, ground realities of life cannot be

ignored and must not be ignored by the learned Courts as well, particularly

when interest of justice requires so to do.

Another equally important aspect of the matter is that if these two

defendants are permitted to be examined at this stage, when their evidence is

still going on, plaintiff-petitioner will not suffer any prejudice. Having said that,

this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the learned trial Court was well

within its jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and the same deserves to be

upheld.

In fact, to meet such a peculiar fact situation as obtaining in the

present case, concept of social context judging is developing in our country as

well. The central idea behind this concept is that the practical and ground

realities of life cannot be ignored. The Courts of law also cannot be ignorant

about the ground realities of life. It is also pertinent to note here that on more

than one occasions, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that rules of procedure

are meant for advancing the cause of justice. It is also the settled proposition of

law that every party to the litigation must be granted due opportunity to put up

its best case before the Court.

Nobody should be forced to go home with the grievance that

sufficient opportunity was not granted by the Court. While proceeding on this

principle of law, the learned Court would be achieving twin objects namely; (i)

it would avoid multiplicity of litigation between the parties, and (ii) it will

enable the learned Court to do complete and substantial justice between the

parties. Under these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noticed

hereinabove, it can be safely concluded that the learned trial Court committed

no error of law, while passing the impugned order and the same deserves to be

upheld, for this reason also.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner

could not point out any patent illegality or perversity in the impugned order,

which may warrant interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its

revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The

impugned order has been found duly supported by sound reasons and the same

deserves to be upheld, for this reason as well.

9 No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted

above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered

view that the revision petition is wholly misconceived, bereft of merit and

without any substance, thus, it must fail. No ground for interference has been

made out.

Resultantly, with the abovesaid observations made, present revision

petition stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.