V. RAJAGOPALA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 3-3-1997 passed by the learned District Munsif, Banaganapalle, in I. A. No. 56/97 in O. S. No. 141 of 1995, permitting the respondent to examine P. W. 3 as witness on behalf of the respondent under Order XVIII Rule 17 of Section 451 C. P. C.

( 2 ) IN the suit filed by the petitioner he examined P. W. 3 and was cross-examined by the respondent. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application I. A. No. 414/96 to recall the witness for further cross-examination. The said application was dismissed on merits. The respondent having not filed any revision, the said order has become final. Now, when the case was posted for the evidence of the respondent-defendant, the respondent filed the present application under Order X VIII Rule 17 of C. P. C. seeking permission to examine P. W. 3 as a witness on his side. The said application was, however, allowed. Aggrieved by the same, this Civil Revision Petition is filed.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Order XVIII Rule 17 C. P. C. docs not permit the defendant-respondent to examine the petitioner s witness as the witness of the respondent. The said provision only applies for recalling a witness already examined by one party or the other but not to examine the said witness as the witness ofthe other party. The learned Counsel for the respondent, however, submits that nowhere in the Court there is any such prohibition to examine one party s witness as other party s witness. In the absence of such provision, and in the interest of justice, the Court in its discretion is entitled to allow P. W. 3 to examine as witness of the defendant-respondent.

( 4 ) THE petitioner examined P. W. 3 who is alleged to be the vendor of the suit property. The petition filed by the respondent to recall the witness after he was cross-examined by him was dismissed. Thus, the Court has given a decision that the recall of P. W. 3 was not pennissible or not justified in the circumstances of the case, and the order has also become final. The respondent filed an affidavit of P. W. 3 in the support of the petition to examine him as his witness wherein P. W. 3 is alleged to have stated that he was brought to the Court by force by the petitioner-plaintiff and hence he has not deposed to the truth. There is no provision in the Court which permits a party to examine a witness of another party on his side. In my view such practice is not desirable as it might lead to endless examination of the same witness by both the parties on the same time. When a witness was examined by one party the other party was given the right of cross-examination and the truth or otherwise of the chief-examination of the witness will be tested in the re-examination and the deposition of the said witness should come to an end there. The other party should not be again given an occasion to examine the same witness as his own witness in support of his case that means contra his evidence in chief-examination. The list of the witnesses should be given by the parties before the trial starts in accordance with the provisions of the Code. However, it is in the discretion of the Court to permit to examine a witness who was not shown in the list of witnesses. The Court below ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in allowing the respondent to examine the witness of the petitioner. The Court below however, found that it was in the interest of justice the said witness-P. W. 3 should be permitted to be examined by other side also as an affidavit has been filed by P. W. 3. If this practice is encouraged, in my view, it might lead to undesirable consequences in conducting the trial apart from endless litigation. A witness once examined by one party if permitted to be examined by other side also, the other side may also try to tamper with the witness to get the desired evidence. Unless a provision is shown in the code for examining the witnes

Click Here to Read the rest of this document