The main legal point established in the judgment is the absence of any prohibition or restriction in the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the examination of one party by the other as a witness, and the right of a party to summon the other party to the suit and examine him as a witness.

1. The defendant in the lower Court is the petitioner in this revision petition. The respondent filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs 370 from the petitioner. In the suit, the respondent examined one witness and closed his case. The petitioner filed an application before the trial Court to examine the respondent (plaintiff) as a witness on his behalf the trial Court rejected his application. The petitioner has filed this revision questioning the correctness of the said order.

2. Shri Manohar Rao Jagirdar, the learn-ed counsel for the petitioner, contends that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to reject the application of the petitioner praying that the plaintiff should be examined as a witness on his behalf. He argues that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure or in the Evidence Act, which prohibits a party from calling any person and examining him as his witness. The Court below was bound to summon the plaintiff as a witness on behalf of the petitioner. The trial Court had no jurisdiction to shut out the evidence on behalf of the petitioner.

3. The respondent is unrepresented in this Court Shri Jagirdar has fairly brought to my notice the observations of the Privy Council in Shatrugan Das v. Bawa Sham Das MB 1938 PC 59, wherein their Lordships condemned the practice of calling the defendant at a witness to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. In such a case the plaintiff must be treated as a person who puts the defendant forward us a witness of truth. The contention of Shri Jagirdar is that the Privy Council has condemned the practice of each party forcing the opponent to examine his own client, in order that he himself may have the opportunity of cross examination his client. His submission is that the Privy Council has nowhere stated that in bona fide cases a party has no right to summon and examine the other party. The party which summons the opposite side takes risk of treating as true whatever the other side states.

4. It is true that the Privy Council has in other decisions also condemned in emphatic terms, the practice of a party to the suit not entering the witness-box with the object of forcing the other side to examine him as his own witness, to enable his lawyer to cross-examine him. It has been stated that the practice, apart from being unprofessional makes it very difficult for the Court to find out the truth. But Shri Jagirdar is right in contending that the Privy Council has not stated that the law does not permit the examination of one party by the other party and that in no circumstance can one party examine the other party as his witness.

5. Sri Jagirdar has also cited before me the decision in Puran Singh Relu Singh v. Mathra Das AIR 1934 Lah 126. This decision states that if a party appears as a witness on behalf of the opposite party, the Court before proceeding to record his statement should find out whether he proposes to appear us his own witness. If the party declares that he does not propose to appear as his own witness, the Court could draw adverse inference against him. If the party however, insists on examining the opposite party as his own witness, the Court should be careful not to allow to cross-examine his own witness, because, unless the witness is declared hostile, the party producing the witness has no right to cross-examine his own witness. Shri Jagirdar argues that if the Court follows this procedure, the danger of one party summoning the other party, pointed out by the Privy Council can be avoided.

6. Sri Jagirdar has strongly relied on Bhupathiraju Suryanarayana Raju v. Bantupalli Appanna, AIR 1969 AP 645 in support of his contention that a party can summon the opposite party and examine him as his witness. In that case, like the instant case, the defendant wanted to examine the plaintiff as his witness. As the plaintiff did not appear, the learned Munsiff, purporting to act under Order IX, Rule 12, C. P. C. dismissed the suit. This order was set aside in re