N.M. KASLIWAL, J.—A short but interesting question of law is involved in this revision, by the defendant, against an order of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, dated January 2, 1979, and January 27, 1979, passed in Civil Suit No. 69 of 1976.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts necessary for the decision of this revision are that the plaintiff-respondents Nos. 1 to 9 filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner and a number of other defendants. On August 22, 1972, the plaintiffs called the petitioner M. L. Mehta to appear as a witness on their behalf, though he was one of the defendants. From the statement of the defendant-petitioner recorded on that day it appears that some objection was raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the defendants that the plaintiffs should not be allowed to record the statement of the other party, but the Court did not allow that objection on the ground that the witness had been administered oath and he has deposed a few lines in the examination-in-chief. From the statement of the petitioner it is not clear as to whether the counsel for other defendants had raised this objection or whether the counsel representing the petitioner had raised this objection. The case then lingered on for the evidence of the plaintiffs and their witnesses and thereafter the evidence on behalf of some of the defendants was also examined From a perusal of the order-sheets it appears that on October 12, 1978, when the defendant-petitioner wanted to appear as a witness, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs stated that he had no objection in the statement of the petitioner being recorded. However, it seems that the Court it-self wanted to decide the question whether the petitioner, who had already appeared as a witness, should be allowed or not to appear again. The case then lingered on for one reason or the other and ultimately this question was considered by the Court on January 2, 1979, The learned trial Court took the view that as the defendant-petitioner has already appeared as a witness, though on behalf of the plaintiffs, he had no right to appear again, even in support of his own case. Subsequently on January 27, 1979, the trial Court closed the evidence of the defendant-petitioner as regards other witnesses also to be produced by him.

3. Mr. Kasliwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents has first raised a preliminary objection that one revision against both the orders dated January 2. 1979, and January 27, 1979, was not maintainable and the petitioner may be asked to choose as to against which order he has preferred this revision.

4. I see no force in this preliminary objection in the view, which I am presently taking in this case. In my view the main order was dated January 2, 1979, by which the defendant himself was disallowed to appear as a witness and the subsequent order dated January 27, 1979, can only be considered as a consequential order of the order dated January 2,1979. There is a provision under Order 18 Rule 3(A), Code of Civil Procedure, that a party himself will first appear as a witness and thereafter he shall examine the other witnesses, unless otherwise permitted by the Court. As in the present case the defendant was disallowed to appear as a witness on January 2, 1979, there was no question of leading evidence of other witnesses or any other person. If the order dated January 2, 1979 is set-aside, then the order dated January 27, 1979 automatically falls.

5. Thus the main question which calls for determination is whether the trial Court was justified in taking the view that as the petitioner has appeared as a witness on 22nd August, 1972, he has no right to appear again as a defendant in support of his own case. It may be mentioned at the out-set that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure or the Evidence Act specifically laying down that the petitioner-defendant once having appeared as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff ca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document