SRI KRISHNA Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge refusing to permit the defendant to give his own evidence. Sri Krishna, the defendant, was examined by the plaintiff as his own witness. After the plaintiff closed his evidence, Sri Krishna wanted to appear in the witness-box and give evidence in the case. The learned Civil Judge refused to permit him to give evidence on the ground that he had already been examined as a witness for the plaintiff. Revision filed by the defendant was not entertained by the learned District Judge. The relevant provision about the recording of evidence of witnesses are contained in rules 2 and 3 of Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. They run as under :- "2. (1) On the day fixed for the hearing of the suit or on any other day to which the hearing is adjourned the party having the right to begin shall state his case indicating the relevancy of each of the documents produced by him, and the nature of the oral evidence which he proposes to adduce and shall then call his witnesses in support of the issues which he is bound to prove. (2) The other party shall then state his case in the manner aforesaid and produce his evidence (if any). (3) (1). Where there are several issues the burden of proving some of which lies on the other party, the party beginning may, at his option, either state his case in the manner aforesaid and produce his evidence on those issues or reserve the statement of his case and the production of his evidence on those issues by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party ; and, if the latter is the case, the party beginning may state his case in the manner aforesaid and produce evidence on those issues after the other party has produced all his evidences.

(2.) EVERY person who is a party in the case, has got a right to appear as a witness in support of his own case. Merely because he is also examined as a witness by the plaintiff does not disentitle him to give evidence in support of his case. Bach party examines a witness for the purpose of proving the facts, the burden of proving which lies on him. Witnesses are also examined to contradict or disprove the case of the other side. Burden of proving different issues and different facts lies on different parties. Hence the examination of a defendant in support of the plaintiff's case cannot debar him (defendant) from examining himself in support of his own case or for disproving the plaintiff's case particularly in respect of which plaintiff may have examined witness after he had examined the defendant. The learned Civil Judge must therefore be held to have exercised his jurisdiction illegally in refusing to permit the defendant to appear as his own witness in the case.