SHAH INDUSTRIES Vs. VADHANI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners-Plaintiffs' an affidavit of examination in chief of his witness P.W. 3 is rejected, as the Defendants raised the objection by notice of Motion not allowing to examine P.W. 3, therefore, this petition. The suit is already fixed for cross-examination of P.W. 3. Merely because Plaintiff No. 1 has examined himself as P.W. 1 and thereafter examined other partner P.W. 2 that itself cannot be the reason to deprive the Plaintiffs to examine any other witnesses, though he may be partner of the same firm. There is no question of seeking permission under Order 18, Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "C.P.C.") to examine their other partners. Order 18, Rule 3-A reads thus:-

(2.) The object and purpose of Order 18, Rule 3-A cannot be interpreted to restrict the rights of the parties to lead evidence of his witnesses. This provision is directory. In a given case Court may pass appropriate order.

(3.) After examining the other witnesses specially when plaintiffs or party desire and wants to lead the evidence to support of his case. There is no total prohibition or a bar that Court should not grant such permission. On the contrary, it is desirable that full opportunity should be given to the parties to the proceedings to put their evidence at the earliest possible stage.