A SHIVALINGAM Vs. A C NARASAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order in I.A.No.292 of 1996 in O.S.No. 141 of 1983 dated 9-8-1996 passed by the learned District Munsif, Ramannapet is the subject matter of this revision petition.

(2.) Petitioners who are defendants in the suit O.S.No. 141 of 1983, filed I. A.No. 292 of 1996 under Order 18 Rule 3-A of the Civil Procedure Code ("for short CPC") seeking permission of the Court to examine the first petitioner who is the first defendant in the suit as a witness, after examining other witnesses on their behalf. The trial Court, on contest by the respondent-plaintiff dismissed the said application by an order dated 9-8-1996 while accepting the submissions made on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff.

(3.) This revision petition originally came up for consideration before brother Justice B.S.A. Swamy. The question which arises for consideration in this revision is the interpretation of the provisions of Rule 3-A of Order 18 CPC seeking permission of the Court to examine a witness after closure of the evidence. When the matter came up for consideration before brother Justice B.S.A. Swamy, two decisions rendered by this Court by two learned Judges reported in Franchis vs. M. Lurdamma1 and in Ch. Seetamma vs. K.Malakonda Reddy2 were cited for rendering an appropriate decision. In the said decisions, two learned Judges have taken different views on the interpretation of the provisions of Rule 3-A of Order 18 of CPC. Brother Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri (as he then was) in the decision (1) supra has held that the requirement of seeking permission at the threshold, if a party wishes to examine himself/herself as a witness at a later stage is not mandatory. However, brother Justice M.N. Rao (as he then was) in the decision (2) cited above has held that a party who chooses to examine himself/herself as one of the witnesses after closure of the evidence, shall necessarily seek permission from the Court at the threshold itself and such permission is mandatory.