The main legal point established in the judgment is that the summoning of the opposite party as a witness is not absolutely debarred, and the opposing party cannot dispute the appearance of the summoned witness if the witness does not have any objection.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Defendant has filed the revision petition against order passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gohana, debarring plaintiff no.2 to appear as witness on behalf of the defendant.

2. Two plaintiffs, namely, Satish Chander and Prem Lata had filed a suit for declaration against the petitioner-defendant-Ranbir Singh. Plaintiff no.2 was arrayed through power of attorney i.e. plaintiff no.1. Plaintiff no.1 had appeared in the witness box as PW1 and thereafter plaintiff closed his evidence.

3. Defendant in its evidence, summoned plaintiff no.2 as witness. Plaintiff no.2 appeared and tendered her evidence by way of an affidavit, which was exhibited as Ex.DW2/A.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs moved two applications and sought deferment of cross-examination.

5. By way of impugned order, the Court has decided the application filed by plaintiff no.1 and has ordered that since no special reasons have been assigned for calling one of the plaintiff as a witness, therefore, one party cannot be permitted to summon the opposite party in a suit unless such good reasons are assigned justifying summoning of the witnesses.

6. Defendant has filed the present revision petition challenging the aforesaid order.

7. Counsel for the defendant-petitioner has submitted that plaintiff no.2 had appeared in the witness box, tendered her affidavit in examination-in- chief. Plaintiff No.2 had not objected on being summoned as a witness on behalf of the defendant. She did not raise any objections even while appearing in the witness box. She was ready to depose as witness on behalf of the defendant. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that either under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure or under the Evidence Act, there is no bar in summoning a party as a witness of opposite side.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that in fact statement on behalf of plaintiff no.2 has already been given when plaintiff no.1 appeared and stated that he is having power of attorney of plaintiff no.2. Plaintiff no.1 has already been cross-examined. Learned counsel therefore submits that a witness who has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff cannot be permitted to appear on behalf of defendant. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that one of the party to the suit cannot be permitted to summon the other party in normal circumstances. If a party wants to summon other party as his own witness, then party has to assign special reasons and seek permission of the Court.

9. Counsel for the respondent has further submitted that re-calling of a witness, once examined and discharged, cannot be permitted unless provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been complied.

10. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties.

11. This case has peculiar facts. Plaintiff no.1 acting upon a general power of attorney of plaintiff no.2 had filed a suit. Plaintiff no.1 had appeared in the witness box as plaintiff. Of course, he did mention that he is also power of attorney holder of plaintiff no.2.

12. Defendant filed an application for summoning plaintiff no.2 as his witness. Plaintiff no.2 appeared in the witness box and filed affidavit in examination-in-chief. It was specifically stated by plaintiff no.2 that she has not given any power of attorney to plaintiff no.1. She was ready to face cross-examination. However, counsel for plaintiff no.1 moved an application, which has been allowed by the Court.

The defendant has filed the revision petition.

13. Learned counsel for the defendant has submitted that the plaintiff No.2 has already been summoned as witness. The plaintiff No.2 has appeared in the witness-box and tendered her evidence in examination-in-chief. He has further submitted that the plaintiff No.1 has no locus to oppose the appearance of plaintiff No.2 as witness on behalf of the defendant.

14. On the other hand, counsel