Point of Law: As per Rule 3-A of Order 18, when a party himself wishes to appear as a witness, he shall so appear before other witnesses on his behalf has been examined, unless court permits him to appear at a later stage.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing as amicus curiae in this case. I have also heard Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Whether a party can be permitted to file additional evidence-in-chief of a witness who has been partly cross-examined, is the core question arising for consideration of this court in the present proceeding. The facts necessary for disposal of this petition are as follows :-

The petitioners are the defendants in Title Suit No. 59/2007 pending before the Munsiff Court, North Salmara, Abhayapuri. The petitioners have contested the suit by filing their written statements. After the closure of evidence of the plaintiffs’ side, the defendants had submitted the examination-in chief on affidavit of two witnesses, i.e. DWs-1 and 2. Thereafter, the DW-1 was partly cross-examined on 12-03-2014 and the matter was fixed again on 23-04-2014 for further cross examination of the DW-1. On the next date fixed, i.e. 23-04-2014, there was a change of counsel appearing for the defendants and the newly engaged counsel had prayed for time to prepare for cross examination of the DW-1. The prayer was allowed by the learned trial Court by imposing a cost of Rs. 1500/- and the matter was fixed on 28-05-2014 for further cross examination of DWs. On 28-05-2014, the defendants had filed an affidavit of additional evidence-in-chief of the DW-1 along with a petition No. 713/2014 praying for accepting the same. The prayer was, however, objected to by the respondents/plaintiffs. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, the learned Munsiff had passed the impugned order dated 30-07-2014, rejecting the prayer made by the defendants. The operative part of the order dated 30-07-2014 is reproduced herein below for ready reference :-

“30/7/14

Both the sides are being represented by the Ld. Counsels. Defendant side on 28/05/2014 submitted additional affidavit of DW-1 and prayed to accept the same vide petition No. 713/14. Ld. Counsel of plaintiff submitted written objection. Ld. Counsel of plaintiff further submitted that the suit is pending for cross examination of DWs & DW-1 is already partly cross-examined and hence in such circumstances the additional evidence U/O 18, Rule 4 of the CPC is permissible & moreover also against the order of Indian Evidence Act. I have agreed with the submission forwarded by the Ld. Counsel of the plaintiff. And accordingly prayer of the petitioner stands rejected and the additional affidavit submitted bennsusted from the C/R.”

The order dated 30-07-2014 passed by the learned Munsiff has been put to challenge in the present proceeding.

3. Addressing the Court on the legal issue formulated in this case, Mr. Mazumdar submits that there is no provision in the CPC which permits a party to a civil suit to submit additional evidence-in-chief after the commencement of the cross-examination of the witnesses. The learned Amicus Curiae, however, submits that under Section 151 of the CPC, the Court has the inherent powers to allow such additional evidence to be brought on record for ends of justice if the facts and circumstances of the case so justifies. It is also the submission of the learned Amicus Curie that if, in the form of additional evidence-in-chief, the witness is seeking to introduce any documentary evidence, than such a prayer can be allowed by the court subject to fulfillment of the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 and also Order 7 Rule 14 CPC or Order 6 Rule 1A of the CPC, depending on whether the prayer is made by the plaintiff’s side or the defendant’s side. In support of his above arguments, Mr. Mazumdar has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy reported in (2011) 11 SCC 275, to contend that even in the absence of any specific provision in the code enabling the parties to re-open evidence or seek leave of the court to addu