SUBHAS CHANDRA AGARWALLA Vs. GOLABI DEVI AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 4-11-89 of the Assistant District Judge, Tinsukia allowing the plaintiff to be examined on commission after two witnesses on her behalf had already been examined. The contention of the petitioner is that under O. 18, R. 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure ('C.P.C.'), the court is required to record its reasons for permitting the plaintiff to appear as her own witness at a later stage, which has not been done in the instant case. The real grievance of the petitioner, therefore, relates to non-compliance of the requirements to Order 18, Rule 3A and not grant of per-mission for examination on commission.

(2.) I have heard Mr. G. P. Bhomik, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard also Mr. D. N. Barua, learned Counsel for the opposite party-plaintiff. Mr. Barua submits that Rule 3A of Order 18 is directory, and as such, the order allowing the plaintiff to be examined on commission shall not be vitiated on the grounds of non-recording of reasons therefor. The permission under Order 18, R. 3A, according to the counsel, is implicit. Reliance is placed on the decisions reported in AIR 1978 Ori 228 (Maguni Dei v. Gouranga Sahu); AIR 1981 Cal 295 (Bholanath v. Kalipada); and AIR 1986 Pat 315 (Pravesh Kumari v. Rishi Prasad).

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. I have also perused Rule 3A of Order 18, C.P.C. This rule was incorporated in the Civil Procedure Code by the 1976 amendment. It reads :