IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CR-8159-2025 (O&M)

Decided on :- 02.12.2025 Baba Jeet Singh @ Sant Baba Jeet Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Sant Jaspal Singh ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.10.2025, whereby the application moved by the petitioner–defendant under Order 18 Rule 3A CPC seeking a direction to the plaintiff to appear as his own witness first, before examining any other witness, has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court. 2. The background of the matter is that the plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction praying that he be declared as the head of the Dera and that the defendant be restrained from acting as Dera Chief, besides seeking an order directing the defendant to handover movable and immovable properties of the Dera. The defendant filed written statement controverting all allegations. Issues were framed on 19.11.2022, and the plaintiff was directed to conclude his evidence within three effective opportunities. However, even after availing eleven opportunities, the plaintiff did not lead a single witness.

3. It is further the case of the petitioner that the plaintiff, instead of examining himself, filed an application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC seeking production of documents at serial No.(a) to (k), which included details of the bank accounts of the defendants. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 06.08.2025, rejected the said prayer to that extent, observing that such documents were irrelevant to the matter in issue, though certain other documents at serial Nos.(a) and (b) were ordered to be produced. This order was never challenged by the plaintiff. Despite this, he moved yet another application for summoning witnesses including the concerned bank official along with entire bank record of the defendant, though a similar prayer had already been declined. Surprisingly, the Trial Court allowed the application on 19.08.2025. In these circumstances, the defendant moved an application under Order 18 Rule 3-A CPC contending that the plaintiff, who has delayed the proceedings for long, should first step into the witness box before summoning other witnesses. The Trial Court, vide order dated

28.10.2025, rejected this application.

4. Since the short controversy is involved in the present revision petition, no notice is required to be issued to the respondent.

5. From the impugned order, it is clear that the learned Trial Court took note of the reply filed by the plaintiff, the complexity of the matter, and the fact that several documents which form the basis of the plaintiff’s testimony were not in his possession and had to be brought by the official witnesses already listed. The Trial Court noted that the provision under Order 18 Rule 3A CPC is directory in nature and that the Court has the discretion to permit a party to appear as a witness at a later stage, provided reasons are recorded. The Trial Court accepted the explanation that the logical flow of evidence required examination of certain witnesses first, and that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant, who would retain full opportunity to cross-examine all witnesses including the plaintiff.

6. Having considered the submissions and examined the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court has exercised its discretion in accordance with law and that its reasoning does not suffer from perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error. The principle under Order 18 Rule 3A CPC is not an inflexible mandate but a procedural guideline meant to ensure fairness and prevent manipulation. When the Trial Court has applied its mind, evaluated the circumstances, and ensured that no prejudice is caused to the opposite party, interference