NIRANJAN LAL Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed a civil suit for the recovery of Rs. 3,000/ - from the defendants -respondents on the ground that this penalty had been imposed on him contrary to the provisions of law. The suit was filed on April 3, 1976. Issues were framed on September 15, 1976. The petitioner filed a list of witnesses on November 26, 1976. In that list, he had stated that he would himself appear as his own witness. However, on account of some reason the petitioner did not enter into the witness box first of all as is laid down in order 18, Rule 3 -A of the Civil Procedure Code. When a prayer was made that he should be allowed to appear as a witness at a later stage, the learned trial Court turned down the prayer on account of the aforementioned provision. In this behalf Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that if the petitioner is not allowed to appear as a witness in support of this case manifest injustice would come into being. He further argues that Order 18, Rule 3 -A of the Civil Procedure Code is not a mandatory provision inasmuch as the phraseology employed in the rule was that the Court may, for the reasons to be recorded permit a party to appear as his own witness even at a subsequent stage. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by me in Darshan Kumar and another v. Raghunandan Sharma, (1978)80 P.L.R. 368. In that case, I had held that the amendments introduced in the Civil Procedure Code should not be given retrospective effect. This judgment can, however, be distinguished on the ground that the stage when a party should be allowed to appear as his own witness is a matter relating to procedure and only substantive rights are in some cases governed by the repealed statute. But I see no reason why change in the letter of law after the institution of the suit be not taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) MR . Ashok Bhan, on the other hand, has relied upon a Single Bench judgment in Jagannath Nayak v. Luxmi Narain Thakur, A.I.R. 1978 Orissa 1. S.K. Ray, J., who decided that case observed as under :

(3.) IN the circumstances, I allow this petition, set aside the order under revision and direct that the petitioner be allowed to appear as his own witness. Of course, it shall be open to the learned trial Court to appreciate the evidence of the petitioner in the background of the fact that the petitioner did not choose to appear as his own witness before he examined other witnesses in support of his case. No costs. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on May 29, 1978. Revision allowed.