Advocates:
['SUNAYNA KOHLI KOTHARI', '', 'SAGAR KOTHARI', 'PARIKSHIT SAINI']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

Civil Revision No.30 of 2022

Km. Sangeeta Khanna & another

…....Revisionists

Vs.

Ram Bharat

…..Respondent

Mr. Sagar Kothari, Advocate, for the revisionists.

Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate, for the respondent.

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J (Oral)

This is plaintiff’s revision, which stood admitted

by this Court by an order dated 14^th 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 12^th 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

2

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 1^st 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

3

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 statem