Beer Singh vs Karambir and Others

S.P. Bangarh, J.—Petitioner, herein, instituted Civil Suit No. RT-130 of 04.01.2007 against respondents. This suit was resisted by the respondents by filing written statement. Issues were framed and the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff. The petitioner availed two opportunities and on the third opportunity, i.e. on 17.04.2012, his evidence was closed by order. Petitioner moved an application for his examination that was dismissed vide order dated 07.10.2013. Aggrieved against both the orders, the petitioner has come up with this civil revision with the prayer of acceptance thereof, and for setting aside both the orders and for according one opportunity to him to examine him as his own witness in the suit.

Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly conceded that he wrongly quoted order 18 Rule 17 in the application that was dismissed vide latter order of 07.10.2013.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that only one opportunity may be accorded to the latter to examine himself in evidence and the respondents may be compensated with the cost for causing inconvenience to them. In order to avoid further delay, notice of petition need not be issued to the respondents who if aggrieved may approach this Court with appropriate petition for setting aside of this order.

The grievance of the petitioner is genuine. Only it was the third opportunity when his evidence was closed by order. Indeed, as per provision under Order 18 Rule 3A CPC, the petitioner as the plaintiff should have been examined first and if due to some reasons, he was not in a position to examine himself first, he should have sought permission from the trial Court for his examination after the examination of other witnesses.

Only petitioner remains to be examined as witness as already noticed. He was required to step into witness-box firstly, as his own witness before examining other witnesses. It was held by this Court in Kishor Chand Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India 2001 (2) RCR (Civil) 200 that the petitioner should not be allowed to suffer on account of lapse on his part since no other witness is required to be examined. In this case, impugned order was set aside with direction to the trial Court to allow the petitioner to be examined as his own witness subject to payment of Rs. 1,000/-.

Resultantly, the revision petition is allowed, impugned orders are set aside and the petitioner is granted one adjournment to appear as a witness before the trial Court subject to payment of Rs. 2000/- as cost to the respondents. The case is now fixed for 28.10.2013 and on that date, the petitioner be examined. If due to some reason, the Court remained unsuccessful in examining the petitioner/plaintiff as a witness, in that event, one more adjournment may be granted to him for his examination. Copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel for the petitioner.