Hajara Singh and Others vs Kuldeep Singh

O.XVIII R.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure is said to be mandatory interns. It is submitted that in case a party wished to appear as a witness,

then such party has to appear as a witness on his behalf, before other witnesses are examined. Such a party can appear latter on only when the

court for the reasons to be recorded permits him to appear as his own witness at a later stage.

With a view to find out the scope of this statutory provision, it would be apt to notice this provision at the first instance.

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"".

The Rule has been held to be directory in nature. The decision of this Court reported as Romesh Kumar Vs. Chanan Lal, 1990 KLJ 237

supports this proposition. The reasoning given in this regard is that this Rule is conspicuously silent as regards the stage at which this is to operate

i.e. whether at the commencement of evidence or after evidence on behalf of the other party has commenced.

It was observed, that this Rule can be construed to be mandatory only to the extent that the party cannot examine himself at a later stage, unless

the leave of the Court is obtained. A party can seek permission even after its witnesses are examined and it is within the discretion of the Court

whether to grant this permission or not. Mohan Lal Vs. Vinod Kumari, 1988 KLJ 150, supports this proposition. The Rule was held to be

directory by the Patna High Court in the case reported as Pravesh Kurnari and Others Vs. Rishi Prasad and Others, AIR 1986 Patna 315. All that

is required is that before granting the permission to a party to examine himself at a latter stage, the Court should be satisfied that there exists

sufficient reasons and that the concerned party is required to be given this indulgence. The Court has a discretion to permit any party to examine

himself as a witness and produce any evidence at any stage, especially when there is no allegation of lack of good faith. See Ayyasarni Gounder

and Others Vs. T.S. Palanisami Gounder, AW 1990 Madras 237 and Kharii Kissan V. Thubra Kissan and Another AIR 1988 Orissa 55. The

Court would be acting within its jurisdiction if it refuses to grant this permission, where the object is merely to protract the trial. See M/s Vaishnu

Bhagat Goverdan Ram Vs. Des Raj 1987 KLJ 645.

It is within the parameters of aforementioned principles the order passed has to be examined. The trial Court has rightly observed that the Rule

is not mandatory and the party which was remiss at one stage can be permitted to get himself examined by burdened with costs. Costs have

already been imposed.

in this view of the matter, this revision is found to be without merit and is dismissed