LAKSHMI Vs. K. UMAMAHESWARI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The arguments advanced by Mr. C.R. Prasanan, learned counsel for the petitioner are heard. The petition, supporting affidavit and the documents produced in the form of typed-set of papers are also perused. The plaintiff in the original suit is the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking the power of superintendence of this Court over the subordinate Courts. The order sought to be challenged is one passed by the trial Judge on 07.10.2015 in I.A. No. 495 of 2015 filed purportedly under Order VIII Rule 3 CPC. But, a consideration of the prayer made therein will make it clear that the petition was filed under a wrong provision of law instead of citing the correct provision Order XVIII Rule 3A CPC. The main provision of Rule 3A under Order XVIII CPC makes it a general rule that the party should appear as a witness on his/her side before ever examining any non-party witness on his/her side. The rule provides an exemption that the Court can grant permission for the party to appear as a witness at a later stage after examination of non-party witnesses on the side of the said party.

(2.) The supporting affidavit contains a recital to the following effect:

(3.) Based on the above pleadings, the petitioner wanted permission of the Court to examine other witnesses and to examine her at a later stage, provided her health condition would permit her to do so. Such a short affidavit was countered by elaborate averments made in the counter statement filed by the second respondent, which was adopted by respondents 3 to 5. Besides pointing out the fact that the provision quoted was erroneous, they also contended that the averment regarding her ailment, treatment and condition of health were also refuted as untrue, false, baseless and vexatious. It was also contended therein that the attempt made by her to seek permission to examine her at a later point of time was only to avoid being cross-examined on vital aspects, which may be covered by the witnesses to be examined before her examination and to plug the loopholes and fill up the lacunae, if she was allowed to examine at a later stage after the examination of the other witnesses to be examined on her side.