PRITHVI Vs. DALMOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Negligence on the part of the plaintiff is manifestly clear from the facts of the case. It is equally important to note that the trial Court has also not cared to look into the matter whether the plaintiffs need to be examined first of all before examinining the other witnesses or not.

(2.) The trial court has not followed the procedure envisaged under Order 18 Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that where a party himself wishes to appear as a witness, he shall so appear before any other witness on his behalf has been examined, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, permits him to appear as his own witness at a later stage

(3.) By examining a party first, lot of evidence is cut short. Similarly view was taken in Kishore Chand v. Life Insurance Corporation of India 2001(2) R.L.R. 200. Though the provision under Order 18 Rule 3-A of the Code is not mandatory but it is directory and effort should be made to follow the procedure laid thereunder.