JASPAL KAUR DHILLON Vs. BITTU @ KULWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 25.2.2014 by which an application filed by the defendants under Order 18 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short 'the CPC] has been allowed and the evidence of the petitioner recorded as PW3 has been ordered to be expunged.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in her possession over the suit property. She had also executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of her husband on 5.12.2008. Issues were framed and the plaintiff examined two witnesses, namely, Vijay Kumar (General Power of Attorney) as PW1 and Surjit Singh as PW2. Thereafter, she tendered her affidavit in examination -in -chief as PW3. At that stage, the defendants moved an application under Order 18 Rule 3A of the CPC alleging that the plaintiff was to appear herself before the other witnesses and even if she wanted to appear after them then she should have sought permission of the Court which can be granted after recording reasons. It is also urged that she has no right to appear as a witness since her attorney, who happened to be her husband, has already appeared on her behalf as PW1 and now her appearance is only to fill up the lacuna left in the cross -examination of PW1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Order 18 Rule 3A of the CPC is not mandatory as held by this Court in the following judgments: -

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that since the plaintiff has already stated her case through her power of attorney, who had appeared as PW1, therefore, she cannot be allowed to be examined later on to fill up the lacuna which has been left in the cross -examination of PW1 and has relied upon a judgment of the Madras High Court rendered in the case