JUDGMENT

1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the order dtd. 28/3/2022 in O.S.No.141 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem.

2. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants. The petitioners filed the suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed dtd. 27/7/1990. After examination of the 5th plaintiff as P.W.1, the 1st plaintiff sought to be examined as P.W.2 and requested the Court to receive the affidavit in chief examination. The same was objected by the defendants on the ground that the 1st plaintiff did not reserve right to be examined after the other parties to the suit by taking support from Order XVIII Rule 3-A CPC. The plaintiffs relied on the decision of the High Court in Shaik Rafath Begum v. T.V.R.Anjaneyulu (died) per LRs. And others,2006 (6) ALD 769. and other decision Garigipati Kesava Rao v. Prathipati Srilakshmi,2006 (3) ALD 68. However, the trial Court observed that the object of order XVIII Rule 3 CPC is not to fill lacunas in the evidence dug at the time of cross-examination and that the suit in O.S.No.141 of 2018, O.S.No.28 of 2013, O.S.No.29 of 2013 and O.S.No.25 of 2013 are together being tried and common evidence is being recorded in O.S.No.141 of 2018 and that the attempt to examine the 1st plaintiff after P.W.1 is to fill up the lacuna and that there is no genuinity on the part of the 1st plaintiff in filing of evidence at this juncture except to protract the proceedings and cause delay.

3. Having been aggrieved by the order, this revision petition is filed stating that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the decisions relied by the plaintiff and that Order XVIII Rule 3-A CPC does not require any such permission for a party. It is further contended that the delay occurred in the matters because of clubbing of the suits and the transfer petition filed by the defendants and that the plaintiffs are in no way contributed for the delay.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs. Though appearance has been made by R.1 through advocate, no representation has been made. R.2/D.2 remained exparte before the trial Court.

5. Order XVIII Rule 3-A CPC reads as follows:- "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."

6. A plain reading of the provision makes it clear that it does not specify of the order in which the parties to a suit or proceeding shall be examined. What order XVIII, Rule 3A CPC mandates is the permission of Court in case a party wants to be examined himself as witness after any other witness on his behalf has been examined. As between the parties to the suit, the serial order in the cause title is not determinative of the order of their examination as witnesses. Law does prohibit more than one party to a suit or proceeding to be examined as witness. As such, every party to the proceeding is entitled to be examined himself as a witness. Merely because, the plaintiff shown at serial No.5 was examined at first, it does not disentitle the party shown at the serial No.1 from being examined subsequently, nor does it require permission. The trail court has misunderstood the provision of Order XVIII, Rule 3-A CPC.

7. In Shaik Rafath Begum supra it is held at para 3 as follows:-

"3. Though Rule 3-A of Order 18 CPC directs the party, wishing to examine himself as a witness, to give evidence as a witness in the first instance before he examines other witnesses, it vests the Court with the power to permit a party to the suit to give evidence as a witness on his behalf at a subsequent stage, by recording reasons therefor. Therefore, a party not giving evidence as a witness in the first instance, would be running the risk of the Court refusing permission to give evidence as a