JOHN SUSHEEL KALE Vs. S DEVARAJULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are plaintiffs in OS No.217 of 2001 before the Court below. In the suit filed by them the first plaintiff has been examined as PW1 and two other witnesses have been examined as PWs.2 and 3. The record of the case shows that PW3 examined by the plaintiffs did not support the plaintiff and hence, was; declared hostile and the petitioners/plaintiffs were given opportunity to cross-examine him. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination of plaintiff No.2, which was objected to by the respondent/ defendant citing the provisions of Order 18 Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that no permission having been obtained to examine plaintiff No.2 as PW4, the chief affidavit of plaintiff No.2 in lieu of chief examination is liable to be eschewed. That application of the defendant was numbered as IA No.485 of 2006 and was allowed by the trial Court on 31.8.2006.

(2.) QUESTIONING the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed CRP No.4765 of 2006 before this Court, which, on consideration, was dismissed by this Court by order dated 4.1.2007. Inter alia, this Court held that without obtaining permission of the Court the plaintiff cannot examine himself after other witnesses are examined on his behalf under Order 18 Rule 3-A CPC. In view of the said findings, the petitioners have filed the present application before the Court below being IA No. 153 of 2007 seeking permission of the Court under Order 18 Rule 3-A CPC, as above, to examine plaintiff No.2 as witness. The said application was again contested by the defendant and by the impugned order dated 13.4.2007 the same was dismissed. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) THE party -in- person has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Dattatraya v. Rangnath Gopalrao Kawathekar (Died per LRs), AIR 1971 SC 2548, particularly Para 5 thereof and relies upon the following passage: