The main legal point established in the judgment is that the second part of Order 18 Rule 3A of the CPC is mandatory in nature, and the recording of a party's statement after other witnesses can only be permitted after satisfying the prior conditions contained under the rule.

JUDGMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

This is plaintiff’s revision, which stood admitted by this Court by an order dated 14th June 2022.

2. Learned counsels for the parties, have consented upon that they don’t have any objection, in case, if the revision itself is considered by this Court, on its own merit at this stage.

3. In view of the aforesaid consensus, yesterday the Counsels were heard at length, and the matter was spread over to be continued to be argued today.

4. The plaintiff to the present civil revision preferred under section 115 of the CPC, had put a challenge to the impugned order dated 12th April 2022, as it has been passed by the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar, in Original Suit No.274 of 2019, “Sangeeta Khanna & others Vs. Rambharat”, whereby the plaintiff’s application being paper No.88(c) 2, which was said to have been preferred under Order 18 Rule 3A of the CPC, has been rejected.

5. The learned counsel for the revisionist, had put a challenge to the impugned order of rejection of his application paper no.88(c) (2); on the ground that the basic purpose and intention of the legislative amendment carried, with effect from 1st July 1977, resulting into an insertion of the Rule 3A to Order 18 of the CPC, had altogether a different objective to be met with in order to eradicate the abuse of the process of law, in the regular civil proceedings, which are being tried by the learned Trial Court or any other regular civil court for that purposes.

6. The grievance of the revisionist is that in the principal Civil Suit no.274 of 2019, the defendants have put in appearance, and have submitted the list of witnesses, which they intended to adduce in support of their case by recording their oral testimony, in support of their contention, and as per the list of witnesses DW1 and DW2, were said to be the independent witnesses, who were not the impleaded defendant to the suit itself. The sole defendant was named at Serial Number 3, in the list of witnesses, who was supposed to be adduced as witness by the defendant in support of their contentions raised in the written statement.

7. The argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the permission to adduce evidence of the DW3 i.e. the sole defendant to the proceedings of the suit, could not be permissible to be adduced after the recording of the statement of DW1 and DW2, in the absence of there being the prior compliance of the provisions contained in the second part of the Rule 3A of Order 18 of the CPC. Order 18 Rule 3A, of the CPC is extracted hereunder:-

“3-A. 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.”

8. If the provisions contained under Order 18 Rule 3A of the CPC, as per the opinion of this Court, which was inserted by virtue of the amendment made by the amending Act of 1977, it provided that any party may adduce oral evidence, in a case, but it shall be only after he concludes the oral evidence, if any, submitted in the Court, so it permits concisely under the distinct heading. He submits that the recording of the statement by a witness party to the proceedings, at a later stage could only be permissible, unless the court assignes the reasons, after permitting the witnesses to be examined later, for the reasons to be recorded to appear in person, after recording of the statement of any other witnesses, by way of an oral testimony.

9. The basic purpose of Order 18 Rule 3A of the CPC, as inserted by Act no.104 of 1976, with effect from 1st February 1977, it basically intended to avoid an abuse of process of law court, which is to be normally resorted to by the Civil Courts, in the procedures, which are governed by the provisions of the CPC to be read with the provisions of General Rule Civil.

10. It has been argued by the