This single judge order disposed of a civil revision petition where a party sought permission to examine as a witness after an advocate had testified. The court found the lower court was correct in upholding the objection.
No order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1616 of 2016
ORDER:
In O.S.No.521 of 2003 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 4, of whom 1st defendant since died, 4th defendant impleaded as legal representative, on behalf of three plaintiffs, the husband of the 1st plaintiff it appears deposed as PW.1. It is later, the 3rd plaintiff wants to come to the witness box as PW.2 and filed chief examination affidavit and while receiving the same as evidence in chief of PW.2 by the Court (that of 3rd plaintiff), defendant raised the objection saying there is no permission required under Order XVIII Rule 3-A obtained, which says, 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, permit him to appear as his own witness at a later stage. 2. A reading of the provision says any party to appear before a witness on behalf of party to be examined must come to the witness box first or to obtain permission of the Court and once he cannot. However, once discretion of the Court is provided it is not stated Court cannot exercise the
2
Dr.SSRBJ C.R.P.No.1616 of 2016
discretion even at a later stage to sub-serve the ends of justice.
_________________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J
Date:17.09.2016 pab
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the principal witness can examine after the advocate witness has been examined without court permission under Order XVIII Rule 3-A CPC
Whether a higher court can interfere when the lower court has assigned reasons for its conclusion in a detailed order
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Civil Revision Petitioner
Lower Court Party (Opposed Revision)
Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
