1. By virtue of the order impugned dated 15.05.2008 application as filed by the petitioners (plaintiffs) for recording the statement of plaintiff as their own witness has been rejected.

2. Suit captioned Ali Mohammad Khanday and others vs. Manzoor Ahmed Dar and another is pending on the file of Learned Munsiff, Pampore. After closure of the evidence of both the parties, suit has been posted for arguments. Learned counsel, while making final submissions, noticed that the statement of plaintiff as their own witness has not been recorded, therefore, filed an application styled to be application under Section 148 read with Section 151 of the CPC, wherein it is projected:

(i) that the above titled case is fixed for arguments;

(ii) that while perusing the statement of the witnesses, it was found that the plaintiff, as a witness has not been examined, due to the impression that the same had been recorded;

(iii) that in order to record the same and arrive at the just decision, the application be allowed.

3. Respondents (defendants) in their objections have contended that the suit has been instituted on 04.03.2002. After five long years, the plaintiffs after concluding their arguments are now praying for getting statement of plaintiff as their own witness recorded. The application has been moved under wrong provision of the law. No cogent, legal or factual grounds have been mentioned in the application nor has any sufficient ground been projected.

4. Appearing counsel for the revisionists contends that though application has been filed under Section 148 read with Section 151 CPC but Learned Trial Court has dealt with it under Order 18 Rule 3 - A CPC. Therefore, it is Rules 3-A of Order 18 CPC which has governed the application. Rule 3-A is directory in its operation. Statement of plaintiff as his own witness could be permitted to be recorded. Rules and procedures are adopted and followed in a pregmatic manner so as to advance the cause of justice. In support of this contention, learned counsel placed much reliance on the judgment reported in 2007 (1) SLJ Page 81, 1990 SLJ Page 27 and 1988 SLJ Page 214.

5. In the Judgment reported in 2007 (1) SLJ Page 81 (Punjab National Bank vs. Farooq Ahmed Malik and others), while following judgments reported in AIR 1989 SC 2206 and AIR 1992 SC 1768, it has been held that the rules and procedures are not themselves an end but are meant to achieve end of justice. The procedure of law is meant to further the ends of justice and not to defeat the ends of justice.

6. In the reported case, suit was consigned to records. For restoration, application was filed which was claimed to be barred by limitation but there was no order of dismissal. It was held that by invoking jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC, the order can be re-called and case dealt with.

7. In the Judgment Romesh Kumar vs. Chaman Lal, reported in SLJ 1990 Page 27, Rule 3-A of Order 18 CPC has been held to be directory and it has been further more held:

"In whatever manner we interpret Rule 3 - A, it comes out that a party can appear as a witness at a later stage with permission of the Court if it shows sufficient reasons for it and the Court while permitting it to appear as a witness, after its witnesses had been examined, has to record reasons and to see whether the party is not appearing in order to fill up any blanks or lacuna left out in evidence already given "

8. In the Judgment M/s Goverdhan Ram Vaishnu Bhagat vs. Dev Raj, reported in SLJ 1988 Page 214, it has been held that the use of the word `shall in Rule-3 A is directory.

Further more, it has been held:

"It is implicit in the provisions of Rule 3 -A that the Court should exercise the discretion in such a manner judicially that the very purpose of the provision should not be defeated. If Rule 3-A is applied only to facilitate a party to fill the lacuna in the evidence which may be recorded before his statement and to mould his own statement to suit his convenience, the very purpose of the provis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document