The provisions of Order XVIII, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are mandatory, and the party should appear before other witnesses unless permitted by the court for reasons to be recorded.

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India prays for quashing the order dated 12-2-2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh dismissing the application of the defendant-petitioner wherein objection was raised with regard to the sequence of examination of witnesses of the plaintiff respondent by relying on the provisions of Order XVIII, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code). It is appropriate to mention that plaintiff-respondent has filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-petitioner restraining him from interfering in the possession of the suit land allegedly owned by him. Plaintiff-respondent has produced the first witness who examined-in-chief on 12-6-2003 and on the request of the counsel for the defendant-petitioner the examination-in-chief was deferred and he was cross-examined on 5-9-2003. Thereafter the plaintiff-respondent examined another witness also. The order passed by the ld. Civil Judge reads as under : "Heard. Certainly provisions of Order XVIII, Rule 3A, CPC requires contesting party to be examined first before he or she examines his remaining witnesses. It is also required that when it is not done, the Court shall record reasons. However, in the instant case, first witness was examined-in-chief on 12-6-2003 and their cross-examination was deferred on the request of Ld. counsel for defendant on both occasions. Subsequently, P.W. 1 was cross-examined on 5-9-2003. Though case was adjourned to 13-11-2003 for P.Ws. but on that day case again adjourned to 22-12-2003. Cost paid. On the undertaking given by Ld. counsel for the petitioner, case is adjourned to 22-12-2003 for PWs. subject to payment of Rs. 500/-. Ld. counsel for the defendant received the costs of Rs. 500/- on the very same day. Since on date 22-12-2003 the undersigned was on leave, so, case adjourned to 12-2-2004 i.e. for today. In between on date 13-11-2003, defendant moved the present application. To my mind, if the defendants had any grievance regarding sequence of examination of plaintiff, she should have objected to it on the very day of examination of first witness or even on the next date of hearing at the time of examination of second witness. He even cross-examined the first witness and further accepted the cost of Rs. 500/- as there was no witness of plaintiff on that day. Not only this, he also sought repeated adjournments for examination of plaintiffs witness. Now after receiving costs and letting two witness box, the defendant is estopped by his own act and conduct to raise this point more so when plaintiff is present in the Court for his examination. Accordingly objection is disallowed."

2. Shri Mahesh Gupta, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has argued that the provisions of Order XVIII, Rule 3A of the Code are mandatory in character and the sequence of examination of witnesses could not be changed. Accordingly, the learned counsel submits that the party i.e. the plaintiff-respondent should himself have taken the witness stand first as his own witness unless he was able to convince the Court for deferring his examination for a later date by allowing the examination of other witnesses. Learned counsel has further argued that the reasoning adopted by the Civil Judge suffers from inherent fallacy in so far as it has been said that the defendant-petitioner had failed to object to the appearance of other two witnesses at the stage of their examination and in fact happily cross-examined them because in the list of witnesses the plaintiff-respondent was not cited as a witness. Therefore, the order of the ld. Civil Judge is liable to be set aside.

3. Having heard the learned counsel at some length. I am of the considered view that this petition is liable to be dismissed. Order XVIII, Rule 3A of the Code which is relevant for deciding the instant petition read as under : Order XVIII. Hearing of the suit and examination of witnesses