Therefore, as per the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 3A of CPC, the plaintiff himself had to appear as a witness before examining PW1 and PW2. Now, question arises whether affidavit of PW3 (plaintiff) deserves to be rejected for non-compliance of provisions of Order XVIII Rule 3A of CPC or not. In order to decide this question, it is necessary to refer to proceedings of the case. A perusal of the file reveals that vide order dated 13.11.2018, issues were framed in this case. On 24.09.2019 PW1 Mohan Lal was examined. On 21.11.2019, PW2 Barkha Ram Swami, Advocate was examined. On 24.09.2019 and 21.11.2019, no objection was raised by any of the defendants rather their counsel conducted cross examination of both the witnesses. On 23.08.2021, examination-in-chief of PW Surjit Singh i.e., plaintiff was recorded. Even at that stage, no objection was raised by learned counsel for defendants. As firstly, evidence of PW1 and PW2 was recorded and after that, examinationin-chief of plaintiff was recorded without any objection from the defendants, it is assumed that defendants waived their objection regarding recording of evidence of plaintiff at later stage. When the court allowed evidence of PW1 and PW2 recorded before evidence of plaintiff and thereafter, recording of evidence of plaintiff, it is assumed that Court impliedly permitted plaintiff to appear in witness box at a
