The main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory requirement for obtaining prior permission to examine a witness after the examination of other witnesses, and the need for the court to record reasons for granting such permission.

Since the facts and circumstances of the case are one the same, a common order is being passed.

1.1.The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.483 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli. The first respondent filed the suit for declaration and for mandatory injunction, in which the second respondent is the second defendant. The trial commenced before the Court. The first respondent was represented by his power of attorney by name Meena and she was examined as P.W.1 at the first instance and after her cross-examination, the first respondent filed proof affidavit for his chief examination, for which notice was given to the other side, namely, these petitioners who prayed for time to cross-examine the first respondent as PW2 without making any objections thereto. Thereafter, he filed two applications one, the present application in I.A.No.1210 of 2007 to reject the chief examination produced by the first respondent on the strength of the absence of getting permission by the first respondent under Order 18, Rule 3-A CPC and questioning the non-obtaining permission, he filed another application in I.A.No.1211 of 2007 and hence, the prayer may be accorded to.

CRP.No.2142 of 2008:

2. In the affidavit, the petitioner has stated that only after getting prior permission from the Court to examine any other witness prior to examining the party himself and since such permission was not obtained from the Court, the chief examination in the form of proof affidavit filed by the first respondent/plaintiff has to be rejected.

3. In the counter filed by the first respondent/plaintiff, it is stated that it is incorrect to state that prior permission has to be obtained by him prior to examining other witness, namely, the power attorney. Hence, the petition is not sustainable.

CRP.No.2232 of 2008:

4. In the affidavit in I.A.No.1211 of 2007, challenging the permission granted by the Court to the first respondent / plaintiff to examine himself as P.W.2., it is alleged that since he was suffering from ailments at the time of filing of the suit, he appointed one Meena as his power of attorney to file the suit, who was examined as P.W.1 and her examination was over, presently for examining himself as P.W.2, necessary permission may be accorded and that the failure on the part of the plaintiff was not wanton and hence, the petition may be allowed.

5. In the counter filed by the present petitioner, he has alleged that as per the provisions of CPC, he should have filed application to examine witness before the party, namely, the plaintiff, was examined and in the absence of obtaining such permission, the petition is not maintainable and that in the affidavit the plaintiff has not adduced any reasons for not examining him at the earlier point of time. Hence, the petition has to be dismissed.

6. The second defendant also filed a counter with the allegations which are in line with that is in the counter of the first defendant, namely, this petitioner.

7. The learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli, dismissed both the applications by observing that the plaintiff filed the suit through his power of attorney at the inception by alleging in the said deed that he was indisposed and hence, he was appointing the power of attorney to file the suit and that even though notice was given to the first defendant P.W.2 (this petitioner), there was no objection on his part, but it was endorsed on the proof affidavit for chief examination of P.W.2 and that he prayed time for examining of P.W.2.

8. In order to have thorough view of the matter, it is advantageous to extract Order 18, Rule 3 A CPC, which reads as follows:

"3A. 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."

9. The gist of the provision g