RAMCHANDRA Vs. BHAGWANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the revisional order dated 26.10.91 passed by the 7th Addl. Distt. Judge, Indore, in civil revision No. 11/91. In a suit for ejectment the plaintiff -respondent moved an application under Or. 18, R. 3(a) of C.P.C. objecting to the defendant's examination as a witness, at a later stage after defendant's witnesses were examined. The trial Court. disallowed the application. On revision the revisional Court reversed the order of the trial Court.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners argued that notwithstanding the use of word' shall' in rule 3(a), C.P.C. the said rule is directory. Shri Verma learned, counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the Art. 227 of the Constitution should not be invoked in such a case.The trial Court in its discretion had permitted the defendant's examination, as is evident from its order dated 16.2.91 filed as Ann. E to the petition. The exercise of this discretion by the trial Court, cannot be said to be unjust or unreasonable.

(3.) In any case there was no jurisdictional error so as to cloak the revisional Court to interfere with the trial Court's order. A mere reading of the rule would indicate that an option is given to the trial Court to permit later examination of the party and even such permission to examine himself after his witnesses being examined, may be obtained at a later stage, of course such permission must be granted for reasons to be recorded by the trial Court, and the trial Court has assigned reasons.