MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) ORDER in I. A. No. 292 of 1996 in O. S. No. 141 of 1983 dated 9-8-1996 passed by the learned District Munsif, Ramannapet is the subject matter of this revision petition.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS who are defendants in the suit O. S. No. 141 of 1983, filed i. A. No. 292 of 1996 under Order 18 Rule 3-A of the Civil Procedure Code ("for short CPC") seeking permission of the Court to examine the first petitioner who is the first defendant in the suit as a witness, after examining other witnesses on their behalf. The trial Court, on contest by the respondent-plaintiff dismissed the said application by an order dated 9-8-1996 while accepting the submissions made on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff.

( 3 ) THIS revision petition originally came up for consideration before brother justice B. S. A. Swamy. The question which arises for consideration in this revision is the interpretation of the provisions of Rule 3-A of Order 18 CPC seeking permission of the Court to examine a witness after closure of the evidence. When the matter came up for consideration before brother Justice b. S. A. Swamy, two decisions rendered by this Court by two learned Judges reported in Franchis vs. M. Lurdamma1 and in Ch. Seetamma vs. K. Malakonda reddy2 were cited for rendering an appropriate decision. In the said decisions, two learned Judges have taken different views on the interpretation of the provisions of Rule 3-A of Order 18 of CPC. Brother Justice Syed Shah mohammed Quadri (as he then was) in the decision (1) supra has held that the requirement of seeking permission at the threshold, if a party wishes to examine himself/herself as a witness at a later stage is not mandatory. However, brother Justice M. N. Rao (as he then was) in the decision (2) cited above has held that a party who chooses to examine himself/herself as one of the witnesses after closure of the evidence, shall necessarily seek permission from the Court at the threshold itself and such permission is mandatory.

( 4 ) IT is, in this background, brother Justice B. S. A. Swamy, has referred the present matter to the Division Bench of this Court for rendering an appropriate decision and thus, the matter came up before us.

( 5 ) DURING the course of hearing of this revision, Sri B. Prakasha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before us a recent decision of the Division bench of this Court in Devarapalli Pattabhi Ramaiah vs. Davuluri Lakshmi prasanna3. Placing reliance on this decision, learned Counsel contended that at any stage, a party can examine himself/herself as a witness on his/her behalf by seeking necessary permission from the Court on a petition filed in this regard.

( 6 ) THE only question, therefore, falls for consideration before this Court in this revision is whether a party to the proceedings is entitled to examine himself or herself as a witness after examining other witnesses on his/her behalf and if so, the requirement contemplated under Rule 3-A of Order 18 cpc is mandatory ?

( 7 ) TO appreciate the object of the provisions, Rule 3-A of Order 18 CPC is extracted hereunder : order 18 Rule 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. "this provision has been interpreted by two learned single Judges of this Court in the decisions (1) and (2) and by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision (3) cited supra. In the decision (3) cited supra, the Division Bench is of the view that the first part of the rule is a mandatory requirement which obliges the litigant to examine himself as a witness before any other witness on his behalf is examined. The Division Bench further held that the latter part of the rule provides power to the Court to permit deviation from the general principle enshrined in the first par

Click Here to Read the rest of this document