A RANGA REDDY Vs. A RAM REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order, dated 18.02.2010 passed in LA. No. 366 of 2009 in O.S. No. 119 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Parigi, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 118 of 2008. He filed suit for injunction. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 119 of 2008 for recovery of possession. Both the suits were clubbed together. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 119 of 2008 got examined PWs.1 to 3. However, he did not enter into the witness box. After completion of the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, then the respondent herein filed chief affidavit. The petitioner herein filed I.A. No. 366 of 2009 under Order XVIII Rule 3-A lead with Section 151 CPC praying to reject the examination in chief affidavit of P.W.4. The lower Court, by impugned order dated 18.02.2010, dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed this revision.

(2.) The main submission of Sri Maniklal Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that Order XVIII Rule 3-A CPC specifically mandates that, where a party who wishes himself to appear as a witness, shall appear before any other witnesses on his behalf has been examined unless the Court, for the reasons to be recorded, permit to appear as a witness at a later stage. The main purpose appears to be that if other witnesses are examined before the party has entered into the witness box, the party would have an opportunity to fill up the lacunas at a later stage. Thus, the party who wishes to examine himself as a witness must enter into the witness box at the first instance and then examine the other witnesses.

(3.) The only point that arises for consideration is whether any interference is required.