JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

CHALLENGE IN THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION

1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned common order dated 19.09.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Bathinda, vide which an application dated 11.07.2024 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for discarding the examination in chief of DW-9 Daljit Singh (defendant no.1) has been dismissed and the second application dated 24.07.2024 filed by respondent no.1-defendant no.1 under Order 18 Rule 3A CPC for grant of permission to examine himself as a witness in the case has been allowed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff in January, 2015 and the written statement was filed in the case on 16.05.2015 and thereafter the plaintiff evidence started on 17.12.2015 and was closed on 15.11.2017. It is submitted that the defendants started their evidence on 28.11.2017 and after examining eight witnesses, they sought to examine DW-9 Daljit Singh, who is defendant no.1 in the main suit, without first having sought permission to examine the said witness at a later stage. It is submitted that the same is in violation of the mandatory provision of Order 18 Rule 3A CPC which specifically requires that in case a party himself wishes to appear as a witness, then, he shall appear before any other witness on his behalf is examined, unless the Court, for the reasons to be recorded, permits him to appear as his own witness at a later stage. It is submitted that the abovesaid provision necessary requires the party to first seek permission to be examined at a later stage and the said permission cannot be sought at a subsequent stage after several witnesses have been examined. It is submitted that thus, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the examination-in-chief of DW-9 Daljit Singh (defendant no.1) deserves to be discarded.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1

3. Learned senior counsel for contesting respondent no.1, on the other hand, has submitted that the trial Court had recorded relevant reasons for grant of permission under order 18 Rule 3A CPC for the defendant to be examined at a later stage. It is further submitted that defendant no.1 had suffered brain hemorrhage and even had placed on record the certificate from the hospital including the CT scan to prove the said aspect. It is submitted that DW-9 had appeared before the trial Court and was examined- in-chief on 29.05.2024 and at that stage, the counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff had not raised any objection with respect to the said witness being examined after the other eight witnesses had been examined, rather had sought an adjournment for cross-examining the said DW-9. It is submitted that only subsequently on 11.07.2024, the present application had been moved as an afterthought.

4. Learned senior counsel for respondent no.1 has further submitted that it has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amritsar Improvement Trust vs. Ishri Devi reported as 1979 PLR 354 that the provision of Oder 18 Rule 3A is directory in nature and there is nothing inflexible in Rule 3A with regard to the stage of securing the permission and has submitted that thus, the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that permission has to be taken prior to the other witnesses being examined is in the teeth of the judgment of the Hon’ble Full Bench. It is submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mita vs. Balbir and others reported as 2025 NCPHHC 34614 has further observed that even in a situation where no separate application has been moved for seeking permission, the same would not be sufficient to non suit the witness/ party, moreso, when an application to disallow the witness from being examined has