(1.) By means of this revision under Sec. 115 CPC, the order dated 6.1.1996 passed by VI Additional District Judge, Mainpuri has been challenged. By the impugned order the learned lower Court has granted permission to the plaintiff-opposite Party for being examined as a witness after he has examined his own witness earlier.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has assailed the impugned order on two grounds. The first is that the impugned order is barred by principle analogous to res judicata because at two stages in the same proceeding's the matter cannot be permitted to be agitated again which was already decided. The second ground in that no reason has been recorded in the impugned order for granting permission to the plaintiff as envisaged under Order 18, Rule 3-A CPC.
(3.) The brief facts are that on 20.9.1995 an application was moved by the plaintiff in the Court below that the plaintiff and his witnesses were present in the Court but the plaintiff thought that the statement of his witnesses should be recorded first because the defendant was exerting pressure upon the plaintiff's witnesses not to come on the next date and that the plaintiff was feeling inconvenience in bringing the witness on each and every date. This application was disposed of by the following order:-