VALLURUPALLI DEVI RAVINDRA PRASAD Vs. VALLURUPALLI RUKMINI BAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 9 -8 -2005 in I.A. No. 405 of 2005 in O.S. No. 127 of 1999 on the file of the Court of VII -Addl. District Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam.

(2.) THE Revision petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed the suit for declaration of title to the plaint schedule properties. The defendants/respondents herein filed a written statement contesting the suit claim and also making a counter -claim for partition of the suit schedule properties among the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2. After the issues were settled and the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs was let in, the 1st defendant examined herself as D.W.1. While the matter was coming up for further evidence on behalf of the defendants, the defendants filed I.A.No.405 of 2005 under Order 18 Rule 3A of C.P.C. seeking permission to examine the husband of the 2nd defendant in the first instance without examining the 2nd defendant. The said application was allowed by the Court below subject to the condition that if the defendants wish to examine the 2nd defendant as a witness at a later stage, she must be examined only with reference to such of the facts that may be elicited from the proposed witness and not touching the interest of the 2nd defendant in the suit properties. The said order dated 9 -8 -2005 is under challenge in this Revision Petition by the plaintiff.

(3.) ON a plain reading of the above provision, it is clear that it is mandatory for a party to the suit who wishes to examine himself as a witness to do so before any other witness on his behalf has been examined. However, the provision itself enables the party to examine himself at a later stage with the permission of the Court. While granting such permission, the Court has to record reasons therefor. In other words, the permission to a party to examine himself at a later stage can be granted by the Court only after being satisfied that the party did not withhold himself deliberately or purposefully from the witness box and that the examination of the party himself at a later stage would not result in plugging the gaps in evidence of other witnesses on his behalf. As observed by a Division Bench of this Court in D. Pattabhi Ramaiah v. : Rule 3A was introduced by Act 104 of 1976 into the Code of Civil Procedure only with an intention to prevent the notorious practice indulged in by litigants in examining other witnesses first and later covering up the gaps by the examination of parties themselves to substantiate their case.