The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Order XVIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which governs the examination of party witnesses and the requirement for obtaining leave from the court.

1. The revision has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 19.08.2013 passed in I.A.No.622 of 2013 in the suit in O.S.No.185 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee.

2. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.185 of 2010 and the same was filed seeking partition and separate possession of 2/9th share in the suit properties and permanent injunction and other reliefs, wherein I.A.No.622 of 2013 was filed by the defendants 1 to 7 who are respondents 1 to 7 herein, seeking an order to re-open the suit for letting further evidence by the defendants 1 to 7. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed their counter raising their objections. The Court below, having considered the plea of both sides, allowed the above Interlocutory Application. Aggrieved by which, the revision has been preferred by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs.

3. Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the written statement filed by the first defendant was adopted by the defendants 2 to 7 and the first defendant was examined as D.W.1 before the Court below. According to him, the fourth defendant should not be examined as leave had not been obtained from the Court. It was also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs that the first defendant is the father of the fourth defendant and they have engaged the same counsel to defend their case, hence, after examination of the first defendant as DW1, if the fourth defendant is examined as D.W.2, that would fill up the lacuna and prejudice the rights of the petitioners/plaintiffs. In this regard, learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to Order XVIII Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows:

[Order XVIII Rule 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."

4. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 7, submitted that the aforesaid provision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. According to him, if a party wishes to examine himself after the examination of independent witnesses, he must have obtained leave from the Court. In the instant case, the first defendant was examined as DW1. It cannot be disputed that the fourth defendant is also one of the parties to the suit and therefore, there is no bar for examining the fourth defendant as DW2, after examination of the first defendant as D.W.1.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs in support of his contention relied on the following decisions:

1. BANUMATHY V. M.VENKATESAN, AIR 1989 MADRAS 239

2. AYYASAMI GOUNDER AND OTHERS V. T.S.PALANISAMY GOUNDERAIR 1990 MADRAD 237

3. JAYAKANNAN V. SAMPATHY ALIAS SAMPATHKUMAR, 1991 (2) MLJ 77

4. NARASIMHAN AND ANOTHER V. JAYAKUMARI, AIR 2005 MADRAS 24

5. RAVI V.RAMAR, 2008 (1) CTC 36

6. M.KUMAR V. S.SUBBIAH KONE AND ANOTHER, 2009-2-L.W.398

7. S.RAMACHANDRAN REDDY & ANOTHER V. NATARAJAN AND 2 OTHERS, 2010 (6) CTC 716.

6. Per contraMr.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 7 relied on the following decisions:

1. RAVI V. RAMAR, 2008 (1) CTC 36

2. CHIDAMBARAM V. RATNAM, 1998 (II) CTC 468

3. SAMIDURAI AND OTHERS V. KANAKAYAL, 1996-2-LW-90

(i). In BANUMATHY V. M.VENKATESAN, AIR 1989 MADRAS 239, this Court (Sathiadev, J) has held that in view of Order 18 Rule 3-A, since the petitioner therein had authorised her husband to depose evidence on her behalf as plaintiff's witness, subsequently, after examining the said witness, the plaintiff was not entitled to be examined herself, in view of Order 18 Rule 3-A of C.P.C. The aforesaid decision is not applicable to the present case, because, there, the husband was only an independent witness