The court invoked supervisory jurisdiction to set aside the trial court's order and allowed the plaintiff to appear as her own witness at a later stage, citing relevant legal provisions and established legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

1. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is being invoked for setting aside the order dated 29.03.2016 (for brevity 'impugned order') passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jammu (for brevity 'trial court'), in case titled Smt. Sureshta Gupta vs. Prithvi Raj Goel.

2. Before adverting to the grounds urged in the petition for quashment of the impugned order a brief background of the facts as stated in the petition reveals that a civil suit for recovery of compensation on account of arrears of rent qua a Shop situated at Amar Market, Raghunath Bazar, Jammu as well as possession thereof came to be filed by the plaintiff-petitioner herein against the defendant-respondent herein.

3. It is being stated that upon filing of written statement to the said suit by the defendant-respondent herein, the trial court framed issues based upon the pleadings of the parties. The plaintiff-petitioner herein states to have got the knowledge that her counsel despite having availed number of opportunities did not inform her about of leading evidence in the case and that upon engaging a new counsel on 19.02.2016, the trial court directed the plaintiff-petitioner herein to lead evidence, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3000/- earlier imposed upon the plaintiff-petitioner herein. The plaintiff-petitioner herein is stated to have filed affidavits of her witnesses on 29.03.2016, but could not file evidence affidavit of her person on account of ailment and being bed ridden. The trial court on 29.03.2016, thus, is stated to have closed the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner herein in terms of the impugned order.

4. The impugned order is contended to have been passed by the trial court against the facts and law inasmuch as, without considering the request of the counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner herein that the plaintiff-petitioner herein was seriously ill on the said date and, as such, could not appear as her own witness. Further the impugned order is contended to have been passed by the trial court without appreciating the legal aspects governing the issue and without looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. Per contra, respondent in his objections has resisted and controverted the contentions raised and grounds urged by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the petition is not maintainable inasmuch as, the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. It is being contended in the objections that from the date of institution of the suit in the year 2005, the case has remained pending for the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner herein and that the impugned order has been passed validly and legally by the trial court.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Record reveals that admittedly, the plaintiff-petitioner herein has not been prompt in leading evidence in support of her case, yet the trial court has allowed the plaintiff-petitioner herein in terms of various orders, of course, subject to the payment of costs to lead evidence and consequently, which the plaintiff-petitioner herein has adduced by way of affidavits up till 29.03.2016. The plaintiff-petitioner however admittedly has not appeared as her own witness. As to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff-petitioner herein can appear as her own witness at a later stage or not is to be considered in the light of the provisions of Order 18 Rule 3-A CPC being relevant and germane herein.

Order 18 Rule 3-A CPC, thus is extracted and reproduced hereunder:-

"3-A. Party to appear before other witnesses: Where a party himself wishes to appear as a witness, he shall so appear before any other witness on his behalf has been examined unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, permits him to appear as his own witness at a later stage."

8. Although, the plaintiff-petitioner herein has not sought a leave from the trial court to appear as her own witness at a later stage