Strong relevant circumstances must exist for examination of party to a suit at a later stage.

The above revision is filed by the defendant petitioner herein questioning

the correctness and legality of the order of the XVI Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in I. A. No. 794 of 1986 in O. S. No. 8043 of 1983.

2. For the disposal of this civil revision petition, certain facts are necessary. The respondent herein filed the suit O. S. No. 8043 of 1983 before the City Civil Court, Madras seeking ejectment of the petitioner herein and also for damages. Written statement was filed and the suit was ripe for trial. At a time when evidence has to be adduced on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent herein, the plaintiff fell ill. This has resulted in examining the respondent's son-in-law as P.W. 1. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I. A.No. 794 of 1986 in O. S.No. 8043 to examine himself as P.W. 2. In para 3 of his affidavit, the plaintiff/respondent herein states as follows :-

"Due to various reasons, the case was adjourned from tame to time and was ultimately posted to 12-12-85 for trial in the special list. On every prior hearing 1 was ready to go on with the case and give evidence. However from 1st week of December 85, I was laid up with jaundice and hence I could not come and give evidence. Because of this I requested my son-in-law to give evidence on my behalf as he was aware of the suit transactions even though he was not aware of the correspondence entered into between the defendant and myself (underlining is mine) which according to me were not material for the purpose of this case. On 12-12-85, my son-in-law was examined as P.W. 1 and the case was adjourned to 16-12-85 for cross-examination and ultimately on 7-1-86, the cross-examination was completed. During the course of the cross-examination on 7-1-86, the counsel for the defendant seems to have filed two documents, letters said to have been written by me and they were marked as Exs. B-3 and B-4. It is pertinent to point out that no reference has been made about Exs. B-3 and B-4 either in the exchange of notices through the advocates which preceded the suit or in the written statement filed by the defendant. for the first time Exs. B-3 and B-4 were produced and shown to P.W. 1 on 7-1-86 and hence 1 could not instruct my counsel to put questions in detail to P.W. 1 about Exs. B-3 and B-4. The case is now posted to 10-1-86. I submit that certain material questions regarding Exs. B-3 and B-4 were omitted to be put by my counsel to P.W. 1. It is therefore necessary in the interest of justice to recall P.W. 1 and to permit my counsel to cross-examine him further." *

It is with these averments, the plaintiff/ respondent herein sought and prayed that he be examined as P.W. 2 for the proper disposal of the lis.

3. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner herein, that no counter has been filed by the defendant to I. A. No. 794 of 1986, on the other hand, an endorsement has been effected by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein to the effect, that this petition is opposed. There was another petition filed by the plaintiff to recall P.W. 1 to which we are not now concerned. In so far as this petition, where the plaintiff sought to examine himself as P.W. 2, arguments were advanced before the trial court by the defendant's counsel that the plaintiff having examined his son-in-law as P.W. 1 cannot now examine himself as P.W. 2 in view of the provisions of O.18 R. 3-A.C.P.C. The learned Judge, on the facts of this case, allowed the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein, against which the above civil revision petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant/ petitioner herein contends before me that when once the plaintiff having not examined himself as a first witness but examined another person, as in this case his son-in-law he has no right to examine himself again in this case as P.W. 2. Reliance is placed on the wordings of O.18, R.3-A, C.P.C. Rule 3-A of O. 18, C.P.C. is to the following effect :

"Where a party hi