Mr. Arun Palli, J.: (Oral) - Vide order being assailed, dated 29.07.2015, rendered by the Rent Controller, Hisar, application moved by the tenant-petitioner to disallow the evidence of Arvind Kumar (PW5), landlord, in terms of the provisions of Order 18 Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, had since been dismissed.

2. Concededly, Mohan Lal son of late Pandit Pushkar Dutt filed an eviction petition and ejectment of the tenantpetitioner was sought on account of arrears of rent and as the demised premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. For, during the pendency of the proceedings Mohan Lal (landlord) passed away, his widow, two sons and a daughter were brought on record as his legal representatives. Landlord-respondents, in support of their claim, examined a few witnesses as also the widow of late Mohan Lal, namely, Sumitra Devi on 06.02.2015. Examination-in-chief of the son of the landlord, namely, Arvind Kumar, was also recorded on 09.07.2015. And twice the matter was adjourned, pursuant to the request of the counsel for the tenant, to cross-examine the said witness. But subsequently, rather an application was moved, in reference to the provisions of Rule 3-A of Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure [CPC], to disallow Arvind Kumar to appear as his own witness. It was maintained that if Arvind Kumar intended to appear as his own witness, he could examine himself before examining his other witnesses, and at this stage his evidence could not be recorded except with the prior permission of the court. But as the said application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, vide order dated 29.07.2015, tenant is in revision before this court. The operative part of the said order reads as thus:

“6. In the instant case, the examination in chief was recorded on dt. 09.07.2015 through affidavit, on such date counsel for Respondent sought adjournment for cross examination, again on dated 13.07.2015 witness was present but counsel for respondent again sought adjournment. Adjournment was granted subject to cost of Rs. 500/-. Now counsel for respondent filed application for not recording the evidence of this witness Arvind Kumar. After considering the law laid down by Hon’ble High Court, this Court is of considered view that the respondent should oppose the recording of evidence before tendering his affidavit as examination-in-chief but he failed to do so. Accordingly this application is not maintainable in the eyes of law and stands dismissed. Now to come up on 1.8.2015 for cross-examination of witness Arvind Kumar. It shall be the last opportunity for respondent to cross-examine the witness.”

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

4. It would be apposite, at this juncture, to refer to the provisions of Order 18 Rule 3-A of the Act and the same read as thus:

“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.”

5. The issues whether the provisions of Rule 3-A of Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure are mandatory in nature or whether a party can appear as his own witness, even after he has examined other witnesses, and if yes, what would be the procedure to follow, are not res integra. The Full Bench of this court in Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar v. Ishri Devi, 1979(2) ILR (Punjab) 220, has concluded as thus:

“Held, that a bare reference to the language of Rule 3-A of Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 would make it manifest that the Legislature has undoubtedly laid down the rule that a party appearing as his own witness must so appear before any other witness on his behalf has been examined. However, in equally express terms one exception to the said rule has also been provided by the Legislature itself. This is that with the permissio