SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(Mad) 556

SOMASUNDARAM
Dr. V. K. Muthusamy – Appellant
Versus
Messrs U. A. Habeen Firm By Partner U. A. Habeeb and Others – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:P.V. Sengottuvel, T. Murugama Nickam, Advocates.

Judgment :-

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, R









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top