ORDER :

1. The instant writ petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugnes order dated 20.01.2018 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge No. 1, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') whereby the petitioner's application dated 19.01.2018 under Order XIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed.

2. The facts appertain are that the plaintiff-Nirbhay Singh (being represented by his legal representatives) instituted a suit for cancellation of sale deed. During the course of trial, the petitioner moved an application dated 19.01.2018 and prayed that an order passed by the Municipal Corporation be taken on record and the plaintiff be permitted to confront Amritlal Taya (DW-1) with the same.

3. The petitioner's application dated 19.01.2018, came to be rejected by the trial Court inter-alia observing that DW-1 himself is a defendant and not a witness and therefore, the provisions of Order XIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable. While rejecting the said application, the trial Court relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Kirodi Lal v. Chhitar Mal , AIR 2014 Raj. 18 .

4. Mr. Nagda, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial Court has erred in rejecting the petitioner's application on the ground that the defendant DW-1 was not a witness. He read the provisions of Order XIII Rule 1, CPC and argued that the term 'witness of the other party' cannot be construed in a restricted sense so as to include only the witness, excluding the parties to the suit. He added that a defendant or plaintiff when comes in the witness box is also a witness, maybe for his own cause.

5. Learned counsel argued that the expression witness should be given its natural meaning and as and when the plaintiff or the defendant appears in the witness box for all practical purposes, he should be treated to be a witness.

6. Mr. Kawadia, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner's contention is not in conformity with the statutory provisions and argued that had the legislature intended to include the plaintiff or the defendant within the expression 'witness', the expression used in Order XIII Rule 1(3) would have been 'the parties or their witness' and in face of the expression 'witness' used in Rule (3), the petitioner's prayer cannot be granted.

7. He further submitted that in light of the adjudication made by this court in the case of Kirodi Lal (supra), the petitioner has no case worth indulgence.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

9. Before adverting to the rival contention, it would not be out of place to reproduce the relevant provision contained in Order XIII Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads thus:

“(3) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents:

(a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party.

(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.”

10. On the first flush, what has been argued by Mr. Nagda, appears to be attractive that the expression 'witness of other party' cannot be construed restrictively and the plaintiff or the defendant who appear in the witness box cannot be excluded from the ambit of expression 'witness'. But then, in face of the direct judgment rendered in the case of Kirodi Lal (supra), there remains hardly any scope for interference, as this Court is bound by the view taken by the Coordinate Bench.

11. In case of Kirodi Lal (supra), this Court has held thus:

“5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the impugned order, as also