( 1 ) THE respondent filed O. S. No. 1366 of 2000 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, kakinada, against the petitioner, for recovery of certain amount. The trial of the suit commenced. On behalf of the respondent, her husband was examined as P. W. 1 and the scribe of the pro-note was examined as P. W. 2. Thereafter, the respondent filed I. A. No. 2191 of 2003 under Order 18 Rule 3-A read with Section 151 c. P. C. , seeking permission to depose as witness- P. W. 3. The application was resisted by the petitioner and ultimately, the trial Court passed an order, dated 1-10-2004, allowing the I. A. The same is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.

( 2 ) MS. G. Ramalakshmi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the requirement under Rule 3-A of Order 18 C. P. C. is dual in nature. According to her, apart from satisfying itself that there was justifiable reason for belated submission of the application, the trial Court must satisfy itself that the opportunity would not be utilized by the concerned witness to fill the lacunae left in the evidence of other witnesses. She contends that though a semblance of compliance is evident as to the first requirement, the order under revision is totally silent as to the second requirement. She places reliance upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in atipamula Shivalingam v. Atipamula Chinna narsamma 1998 (2) ALD 241.

( 3 ) SRI. P. Girish Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the respondent did not depose as a witness in the initial stage, on account of her pregnancy, and that the trial Court was satisfied with the reason for the belated submission of the application. He contends that the petitioner did not express any apprehension that the respondent would fill the lacunae, if she figures as a witness, and in that view of the matter, the trial Court cannot be expected to deal with such an eventuality.

( 4 ) BASICALLY, the parties to the suit are required to adduce their evidence by figuring as witnesses, before any other witnesses are examined on their behalf. It conforms to the principle that basically, it is the obligation of the party to prove his case by speaking to the contents of the pleadings, and by examining other witnesses, to corroborate his case. There existed vast number of instances, where the non-party witnesses were examined first and the concerned parties were examined as witnesses, at a later point of time. To curb this, the Parliament stepped in and added Rule 3-A in Order 18 C. P. C. It reads as under :"3a. 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. "this provision reiterates the basic principle of examining witnesses in a suit. However, it permits a party, to a suit, to depose after the non-party witnesses are examined. While according such permissions, reasons are to be recorded.

( 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.

( 6 ) IN the instant case, trial of the suit commenced, and persons, who were not parties to the suit, were examined as witnesses. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application, pleading that she was pregnant at the commencement of the evidence, and as such, she could not depose as witness. The only objection raised by the petitioner in his counter affidavit was that the facts pleaded by the respondent were not supported by any documentary evidence and that the requirements of Rule 3-A of Order

Click Here to Read the rest of this document