YALLAPPA M. MUDUKAPPANAVAR AND ORS. Vs. PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant Nos.1 and 3 have called in question the order dated 07/11/2013 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hubli, in O.S.No.232/2010, allowing I.A.No.XI filed by the plaintiff under Order XVIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Notice to be issued to the respondent is dispensed with.

(3.) It is seen from the records that, earlier, the plaintiff had filed an application seeking permission of the Court to permit him to be examined through power of attorney holder. But the said application was rejected and in fact, the plaintiff came up before this Court in Writ Petition No.76216 of 2013 wherein this Court by order dated 05/04/2013 observed that the petitioner would be satisfied, if, he is allowed to examine Mahadev G. Agali, as his witness, though not as his power of attorney. Further observed that there is no bar in law in examining such witness in a suit. Therefore, it is open to the plaintiff-petitioner to examine Mahadev G. Agali as his witness to prove his case but not as his power of attorney holder. In addition to Mahadev G. Agali, the petitioner may also examine himself or any other witnesses in support of his case. By the said observation the said writ petition was disposed of. It appears, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order XVIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission of the Court to permit him to examine his witnesses earlier to getting examined himself. The trial Court, by giving reasons, allowed the plaintiff to examine himself later after examination of the witness as requested by him. The Court has also specifically observed that even if the witnesses are examined before the plaintiff is examined, it will not cause any hardship because both the persons have to be subjected to cross-examination and the defendants are it liberty to elicit the fact through crossexamination as he wanted. Therefore, the Court by giving reasons allowed the application filed under Order XVIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure. I do not find any strong reasons to interfere with the orders passed by the trial Court.