Order 18, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was introduced by Act 104 of 1976, is intended to prevent the practice of litigants examining other witnesses first and then covering up the gaps and lacunae in such evidence by examining themselves later.

The petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 1002 of 1992 on the file of First Additional District Munsif at Erode.

2. The petitioner filed the said suit against the respondents for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6, 790.00 on the foot of a promissory note dated 6-7-1989. The respondents are contesting the suit. The petitioner during the pendency of the suit, filed I.A. 1326 of 1993 under Order 18, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure before the court below seeking permission to examine himself as a witness last in the suit after examining the other witnesses on his behalf. The Court below took the view that the petitioner has not given valid reasons for examining himself as a witness last after examining the other witnesses and consequently, the court below dismissed the I. A. 1326 of 1993. Aggrieved by the said order of the court below, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision petition.

3. Rule 3A of Order 18 reads thus:-

"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".

Order 18, Rule 3A of the Code was introduced by Act 104 of 1976 purusant to the recommendations in the 54th report of the Law Commission and the provision was intended to prevent the persistent and notorious practice indulged by litigants in examining other witnesses first and alter covering up the gaps and lacunae in such evidence, by the examination of the parties themselves later, to substantiate their case. A careful reading of Order 18, Rule 3A indicates that the party should be examined first and the other witnesses later and if the other witnesses are to be examined first and the parties should be examined later, the Court should permit the party to so appear as a witness at a later stage. Dealing with the scope of Order 18, Rule 3A in V. Jayakannan and three others v. V.K. Sampath Alias V.K. Sampathkumar, 1987 TLNJ 340, Chandurkar Chief Justice has observed as follows:-

"Therfore, a party examining itself before other witnesses are examined is the rule. A party examining itself after the other witnesses are examined is an exception. An exception can be made only for valid reasons.

What those valid reasons are will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case."..........................

" The obvious purpose of the rule is to do away with the practice which had grown in Indian Courts of examining all other witnesses first and then the party entering the witness box to fill up all the lacunae which might have been left or to undo the damage which might have been caused by certain admissions which might have been made by the other witnesses. It adversely affects the opposite party. It is a normal rule of appreciation of evidence that the substantive evidence in each case is of the party itself and the other witnesses are most of the time treated as witnesses corroborating the substantive evidence. It was this rule of appreciation of evidence which has now been incorporated in the mandatory provision by the enactment of Order 18, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure."

The learned Judge while holding that Order 18, Rule 3A should receive strict construction observed thus:-

"In so far as the argument of stringently construing Order 18 is concerned, it has to be realised that if this provision is not construed stringently, the situation in the case of trial of suits will be the same as it was before the provision was enacted. The obvious result will be that if the provision in Order 18, Rule 3A is not implemented it will defeat the very intent and purpose for which it was enacted."*

What is relevant under Order 18, Rule 3A of the Code is that the court should be satisfied that the party who should appear as a witness on his behalf before the other witnesses in support of his case are examined, is unable to appear and give evidence in support of his case. Th