RAVI Vs. RAMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Civil Revisions are referred to the Division Bench to consider the scope of the provisions contained in Order XVIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as "CPC". This provision was introduced by way of amendment in 1976. This matter has been referred to the Division Bench not only because of certain conflicting decisions of single Judges of Madras High Court but also because of importance of the question.

(2.) ORDER XVIII Rule 3-A CPC is extracted hereunder:

(3.) FROM the reported decisions cited at the Bar, it is apparent that such a view has been expressed by Madras High Court in AIR 1990 Madras 237 (AYYASAMI GOUNDER AND OTHERS v. T.S. PALANISAMI GOUNDER), wherein it was observed:- . ... When the object behind the introduction of O.XVIII, R.3-A of the Code is to put an end to the mal-practices indulged in by the litigants, referred to earlier, it is obvious that in cases where the party desires to examine himself at a later stage, he should prior to the commencement of the evidence on his side, make an application in that behalf before the court for such later examination. Otherwise, O.XVIII, R.3-A of the Code will honoured more in its breach, rather than in its observance. When the provision contemplates the obtaining of permission from that Court for the later examination of a party as a witness, it is clear that such permission should be applied for and sought prior to the commencement of the evidence on the side of the party not seeking permission, as the non-obtaining of such permission at that stage would result in a breach of O.XVIII, R.3-A of the Code and to say that O.XVIII, R.3-A of the Code could be resorted to even after the examination of other witnesses on behalf of the party to the suit, would be to render that provision a dead-letter. The resort to O.XVIII, R.3-A of the Code, after other witnesses are examined on behalf of a party seeking permission for the examination of a party thereafter, would defeat the very purpose of the rule that the party should be examined first as a witness and the other witnesses later." ....