Telangana High Court
Malikireddy Vanamala, vs Thokala Sampath Reddy, on 25 September, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT: HYDERABAD
CORAM:
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2860 OF 2025
% Delivered on: 25-09-2025
Between:
# Mrs. Mallikireddy Vanamala .. Petitioner
Vs.
$ Mr. Thokala Sampath Reddy & Others .. Respondents
! For Petitioner : Mr. C. Hari Preeth
^ For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Kadaru Prabhakar Rao
For Respondent Nos.2 to 9 : ---
< Gist :
> Head Note :
? Cases Referred :
1. AIR 1990 Madras 237
2. 2008 (4) C. L.J. 196
3. 1993 (3) ALT 182
4. (2002) 10 SCC 184
5. 1996 SCC OnLine Mad.546
6. AIR 1985 Madras 183
7. C.R.P. No.5665 of 2017, decided on 15.12.2017
8. C.R.P No.1527 of 2018, decided on 27.04.2018
2
KL,J
CRP No.2860 of 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2860 OF 2025
ORDER:
Heard Mr. C. Hari Preeth, learned Counsel for the Petitioner - defendant No.1 and Mr. Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - Plaintiff. Respondent Nos.2 to 9 are not necessary parties as per the cause title.
2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article - 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 02.07.2025 in I.A. No.558 of 2024 in O.S. No.603 of 2011 passed by learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda.
3. Respondent No.1 has filed a suit in O.S. No.603 of 2011 against the petitioner herein and respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein for declaration and perpetual injunction. Respondent Nos.8 and 9 herein being subsequent purchasers from defendant Nos.1 to 3 were impleaded as per the orders dated 15.12.2016 in I.A. No.335 of 2016.
4. Thus, the petitioner herein and respondent Nos.2 to 9 are defendants, while respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to according to their rank in O.S. No.603 of 2011 before the trial Court. 3
KL,J CRP No.2860 of 2025
5. In the said suit, on completion of plaintiff's evidence, the trial Court posted the said suit for defendants' evidence. At that stage, defendant No.1 filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No.558 of 2024 under Order - XVIII, Rule - 3A read with Section - 151 of CPC permitting her to adduce her evidence later and also permit her to adduce her evidence through her other witnesses i.e., Mr. Thokala Jayapal Reddy as DW.1 in the said suit contending that she is suffering from knee joint pains and other ailments and taking treatment. Therefore, she is unable to appear before the Court. She sought permission to adduce her evidence later and permit defendant No.8 to examine as DW.1.
i) She further contended that after cross-examination of her other witnesses she will adduce her evidence as DW.2 in the said suit to prove her case.
ii) She has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination of defendant No.8 as DW.1.
6. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff contending that defendant No.1 has not filed a scrap of paper in support of her contention that she is suffering from joint knee pains. She is hale and healthy and pursuing her day-to-day activities. She is attending functions and ceremonies of relatives and villagers. The alleged knee joint pain would 4 KL,J CRP No.2860 of 2025 not in any way prevent her from attending the Court. Only under the compelling strong circumstances which are relevant and germane, Court can permit a party to examine her after her witness has been examined.
7. Vide order dated 02.07.2025, learned trial Court dismissed the said application holding that defendant No.1 has not filed any documentary evidence in proof of her contention that she is suffering from knee joint pain. Though the said Thokala Jayapal Reddy is defendant No.8 to the said suit, there are no compelling circumstances to the trial Court to accord permission to defendant No.1 to examine defendant No.8 as DW.1 first. With the said findings, the trial Court dismissed the said application.
8. Challenging the said order, defendant No.1 filed the present revision contending that the trial Court committed grave error in dismissing the application without appreciating the purpose and object of Order - XVIII, Rule - 3A of CPC. The trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if permission is accorded to defendant No.1 to examine defendant No.8 as DW.1.
9. The plaintiff opposed the present revision contending that on consideration of the purpose and object of Order - XVIII, Rule - 3A of CPC and that defendant No.1 failed to establish the compelling circumstances to permit her to examine defendant No.8 as DW.1. She has not filed any 5 KL,J CRP No.2860 of 2025 document in support of her contention that she is suffering from knee joint pains. There is no error in the impugned order.
10. Both learned counsel for the petitioner - defendant No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.1 - plaintiff made their submissions. This Court also perused the material available on record.
11. As discussed above, the plaintiff had filed the aforesaid suit in O.S. No.603 of 2011, initially against defendant Nos.1 to 7 for declaration and perpetual injunction. Thereafter, defendant Nos.8 and 9, subsequent purchasers of the subject property, were impleaded as per the orders dated 15.12.2016 in I.A. No.335 of 2016.
12. Perusal of record would reveal that defendant No.1 had filed written statement opposing the suit claim. Defendant No.8 filed separate written statement. In the said suit, the plaintiff has pleaded that he is the son and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are daughters of defendant No.4. Defendant No.5 is his paternal uncle and defendant Nos.6 and 7 are the agnates of plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the said suit to declare him as absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he has narrated the entire facts in the plaint. According to him, defendant Nos.4 to 7 executed a registered sale deed bearing document No.2158 of 2008, dated 05.12.2008 in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property 6 KL,J CRP No.2860 of 2025 without any right or interest. They have not paid any consideration. In collusion with defendant Nos.1 to 3, defendant Nos.4 to 7 have brought the said document into existence to make wrongful gain to themselves and to cause wrongful loss to the plaintiff. Therefore, the said sale deed is sham and bogus and brought into existence fraudulently. He is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property.
13. During pendency of the said suit, according to the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 to 3 executed a registered sale deed bearing Nos.2706 and 2707 of 2011, both dated 12.09.2011 in favour of defendant Nos.8 and 9. Therefore, they were impleaded as defendant Nos.8 and 9.
14. Defendant No.1 filed written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff. She is entitled for 1/3rd share in item No.1 of the suit schedule property on par with defendant Nos.2 and 3 as her Stridhanam property as it was conveyed to them by Kartha of the Joint Hindu Family towards Pasupukumkuma at the time of her marriage. Subsequently a registered sale deed was also executed by defendant Nso.4 to 7. Thus, defendant Nos.1 to 3 perfected their title over item No.1 of the suit schedule property.
15. Defendant No.8 filed written statement contending that he is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0.10 guntas in Survey No.1045/AA and Ac.0.07½ guntas in Survey 7 KL,J CRP No.2860 of 2025 No.1047/B/A, which are situated side-by-side and constitutes one single compact block making a total extent of Ac.0.17½ guntas, situated at Dharmasagar Village and Mandal, Warangal District, having purchased under a registered sale deed bearing document No.2706 of 2011, dated 12.09.2011 from defendant Nos.1 to 3 for valid sale consideration. He is in possession of the said property. The said transaction is very much within the knowledge of plaintiff. Even then, he was silent all through. He has filed the said suit with false and baseless allegations.
16. Thus, there is no dispute that defendant Nos.8 and 9 are pendent lite purchasers of the aforesaid property under registered sale deed bearing document Nos.2706 of 2011 and 2707 of 2011, both dated 12.09.2011 from defendant Nos.1 to 3. Defendant Nos.8 and 9 are claiming right over the said properties on the strength of the aforesaid two registered sale deeds executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3.
17. As discussed above, the plaintiff had filed the aforesaid suit against the defendants seeking declaration and perpetual injunction. He has examined himself as PW.1. Thereafter, the suit was posted for defendants' evidence. At that stage, defendant No.1 has filed the aforesaid application under Order - XVIII, Rule - 3A of CPC seeking permission of the trial 8 KL,J CRP No.2860 of 2025 Court to examine defendant No.8 as DW.1 first on the ground that she is suffering from knee joint pains. The said application was dismissed.
18. As discussed above, defendant No.1 sought permission to examine defendant No.8 as DW.1 before her evidence. Thus, the said defendant No.8 is not a stranger to the suit. He is a party to the suit. He has filed separate written statement.
19. In the light of the above, it is apt to note that Order - XVIII of CPC refers to 'hearing of the suit and examination of witnesses'. Rule - 3 of Order - XVIII deals with 'right to begin', while Rule - 2 deals with 'statement and production of evidence' and Rule - 3 deals with 'evidence where several issues'. Rule 3-A deals with 'party to appear before other witnesses'. The same is relevant herein and accordingly it is extracted as under:
"3-A. Party to appear before other witnesses.- 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."
20. There is no quarrel with regard to the proposition that if party to the suit either plaintiff or defendant wants to examine a third party to the 9 KL,J CRP No.2860 of 2025 suit, they shall necessarily obtain permission of the Court under Order - XVIII, Rule - 3A of CPC.
21. Now, the question is if they want to examine a party to the suit as witness before their examination, whether it is compulsory to obtain permission of the Court in terms of Order - XVIII, Rule - 3A of CPC.
22. It is also apt to note that Rule - 3A of CPC was inserted vide Act 104 of 1976 w.e.f. 01.02.1977. The object of introduction of Rule - 3A is to put an end to the malpractices indulged in by the litigants, it is obvious that in cases where the party desires to examine himself at a later stage, he should prior to the commencement of the evidence on his side, make an application in that behalf before the Court for such later examination. Otherwise, Order - XVIII, Rule - 3A of CPC will be honoured more in its breach, rather than in its observance. When the provision contemplates obtaining permission from that Court for the later examination of a party as a witness, it is clear that such permission should be applied for and sought prior to the commencement of the evidence on the side of the party not seeking permission, as the non-obtaining of such permission at that stage would result in a breach of Order - XVIII, Rule - 3A of CPC, and to say that Order - XVIII, Rule - 3A of CPC could be resorted to even after the examination of other witnesses on behalf of the party to the suit, would be 10 KL,J CRP No.2860 of 2025 to render that provision a dead-letter. The resort to Order - XVIII, Rule - 3A of CPC after other witnesses are examined on behalf of a party seeking permission for the examination of a party thereafter, would defeat the very purpose of the Rule that the party should be examined first as a witness and the other witnesses later. The said principle is also laid down by the Madras High Court in Ayyasami Gounder v. T.S. Palanisami Gounder 1.
23. In Ravi v. Ramar2, the Madras High Court considered the said aspects, examined the scope of witnesses and also considered the different views taken by various High Courts and in paragraph Nos.18 to 22 held as under:
"18. A perusal of the decisions of different High Courts indicate that the provision contained in Order 18 Rule 3(A) has been considered to be directory in nature. Even the provision itself contemplates that as a general rule, if the party wants to examine himself as a witness, he should be examined before other witnesses are examined. However, on the basis of an application of the party, he can be permitted to be examined as a witness after examination of other witnesses. While granting permission, the court is required to indicate reasons in writing. However, the question is: whether as an inexorable rule such permission has to be sought for at the beginning before any other witness is examined on behalf of the party or whether even at a subsequent 1 . AIR 1990 Madras 237 2 . 2008 (4) C. L.J. 196 11 KL,J CRP No.2860 of 2025 stage after examination of some or all the witnesses the party himself can seek for permission?.
19. As observed in the various decisions and more particularly in the decisions of the Division Benches of Punjab & Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir, Patna and Orissa High Courts, what is necessary is that before giving such permission, the court is required to give reasons and obviously the reasons must be relevant. However to lay down as an inexorable rule that in no case such an application can be filed after the examination of any other witness may result in injustice.
20. Keeping in view the principle that procedural rules are normally considered as directory unless the consequence of not following the procedure is specifically indicated, it would be appropriate to hold that the Court can give permission to the party to examine himself at a later stage even if no such permission had been sought for at the very threshold. As a matter of fact, save and except in one or two decisions of the single Judges of the Madras High Court, most of the High Courts, including many of the Judges of Madras High Court, have preferred to follow a more liberal path of laying down the proposition that even where such permission has not been sought for at the threshold, such permission can be granted for relevant reasons at a later stage. This is not to suggest that as and when such petition is filed the Court is bound to grant such permission merely for the asking. Obviously, the Court is required to consider the matter in its proper 12 KL,J CRP No.2860 of 2025 perspective and is required to find out as to why the party could not examine himself at the beginning and also as to why the application for seeking such permission was not filed at the threshold. If the Court finds that the party deliberately held himself back with a view to fill-up the lacunae in the evidence at a later stage, obviously such permission is to be refused irrespective of the fact whether permission is sought for at the threshold or at a later stage. If convinced on such aspects, the Court may permit the party to examine himself as a witness at a later stage. What is important is recording of reasons and obviously it means reasons which are germane to the matter, that is to say, relevant for the purpose.
21. It appears that in many cases petitions are filed after examination of other witnesses stating that the party or even his Advocate was not aware of the legal position and, therefore, the party could not be examined at the beginning. Ordinarily such a plea cannot be countenanced as ignorance of law cannot be considered as an excuse, particularly when a party is represented by an Advocate. Moreover, the opposite party can always be vigilant and raise objection at the time of examination of a non-party witness before the examination of party witness and if such objection is raised, obviously the Court should record such objection.
22. The amendment was introduced with a view to ensure that the party examining himself as a witness at a 13 KL,J CRP No.2860 of 2025 later stage should not be permitted to fill-up the lacunae in the evidence adduced from his side. Where the Court comes to a conclusion that the party had deliberately with-held himself to be examined as a witness at a later stage with a view to fill-up the lacunae in the evidence, obviously permission cannot be granted to such a party to examine himself at a later stage. This is a relevant consideration where the application is filed, seeking permission to examine him at a later stage, either at the threshold of examination of other witnesses or subsequently after examination of all or some of the witnesses. The real test is to find out whether there was a genuine cause for which the party was not examined as a first witness. If for some genuine reasons, which could not be foreseen initially, a party wants to examine himself at a later stage, permission can be granted. Therefore, the overriding consideration is not whether the party makes the application at the threshold or at the subsequent stage, but whether for a genuine and germane reason the party is required to be examined at a later stage notwithstanding the fact that he was not examined as a witness at the beginning. This seems to be the essence of the different decisions of different High Courts. What would be the relevant facts and circumstances, obviously cannot be laid down in a strait jacket formula and obviously it is for the court concerned to deal with the matter in judicious manner. The reference is accordingly answered. The civil revisions shall now be placed before the learned single Judge for disposal, in accordance with law."14
KL,J CRP No.2860 of 2025
24. In Chava Seethamma v. Kolaguntla Malakonda Reddy 3, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad examined the scope of Order - XVIII, Rule - 3A of CPC in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 held as under:
"3. Order 18 Rule 3-A of the Code is in the following terms:
"Party to appear before other witnesses:- 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."
When the evidence of the plaintiffs was over, it was open to defendants 1 and 2 in that order to figure as witnesses. If defendant 3 wants to give evidence in the first instance as D.W. 1, he must necessarily obtain permission of the Court, it is obligatory on the part of the Court to state reasons for according such a permission. Evidently this procedure is intended to advance the cause of justice, where there are more than one defendant, in the order, in which the defendants are arrayed, they should give evidence, otherwise there is every likelihood of gaps in the evidence being filled up. Same reasoning applies if there are more than one plaintiff. If the procedure as contemplated under Rule 3- 3 . 1993 (3) ALT 182 15 KL,J CRP No.2860 of 2025 A of Order 18 of the Code is not adhered to, there is every likelihood of the parries insisting upon, at every stage, the court to grant permission to lead rebuttal evidence.
4. The reason stated for defendants 1 and 2 not coming forward to give evidence earlier than defendant 3, is absolutely immaterial. What is material is that the permission of the Court had not been obtained. Even if such a permission were to be sought, it would be highly doubtful whether the Court would accede to such a request; when the first defendant is said to be an old woman suffering from cardiac ailment, it does not stand to reason that she should be examined after the evidence of all the defendants' witnesses is over. The reasons given for the second defendant not coming forward also does not appear to be sound. If he is a boy unacquainted with the worldly affairs, no convincing reason is forthcoming as to why he would like to figure as witness at the end."
25. It is also apt to note that in N.C. Kaladharan v. Kamaleshwaran4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if party does not wish to appear as a witness at all, the question whether he should appear first loses its relevancy, where appellant applied for probate of a Will, but did not wish to appear as a witness himself, held on facts, the Court could 4 . (2002) 10 SCC 184 16 KL,J CRP No.2860 of 2025 proceed to examine the evidence in terms of Sections - 67 and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.
26. In Samidurai v. Kanakayal 5, the Madras High Court held that Order - XVIII, Rule - 3A of CPC is directory rather than mandatory. The rule requires that if a party wishes to be examined after other witnesses, the Court must grant permission for such late examination and record reasons in writing. The Court emphasized that the permission need not necessarily be obtained before other witnesses are examined, it can be sought later, provided the Court is satisfied with the reasons. It is not necessary to obtain permission prior to the examination of other witnesses.
27. In Marappa Gounder v. Sellappa Gounder6, the Madras High Court held as follows:
"5. When the rule contemplates permission to be granted by Court for a party to a proceeding to be examined at a later stage, it is indicative that there is no total ban against parties being examined after their witnesses are put in the witness box. That was why, in the decisions above referred to, it was held, that the rule is directory in nature. This would not mean that the rule could be transgressed indiscriminately in an unbridled manner. A duty is cast on the court to record reasons, which means that valid and compulsive grounds must be 5 . 1996 SCC OnLine Mad.546 6 . AIR 1985 Madras 183 17 KL,J CRP No.2860 of 2025 made out, for postponing the examination of parties to the suit. If a party to the suit desires to be examined later on, he should seek prior permission before the other witnesses are examined. In its absence, it can be sought later on at the time when the party is put in the witness box, if by mischance any of his witnesses have been already examined, without securing earlier permission. Whenever permission is sought for, it is obligatory on the part of Court to record reasons, by passing a written order, either granting or refusing it. If permission is sought in the initial stage before any witness is examined, then reasons to be given should relate to the justifiable inability on the part of the party to first examine himself. Before granting permission, it should hear the objections, if any, of the other side, and then alone permit any witness of the party to be examined.
6. In such of those cases wherein without prior permission witnesses of the party had been examined, and later on the party wishes to appear as a witness, the Court is duty bound to find out, whether on the party being examined at that stage, it would result in filling up any blanks or lacunae left out in the evidence already given, and whether wantonly he avoided the witness box with ulterior motives, and whether he was placed in such a situation or circumstances which had disabled him from being examined earlier etc. Unless compelling strong circumstances which are relevant and germane had existed, permission to a party to a proceeding to examine himself after his witnesses had been examined, 18 KL,J CRP No.2860 of 2025 ought not to be granted. The intention of Parliament in enacting the rule, which had come into existence, on the recommendation made by Law Commission, had resulted in a revised procedure being evolved, according to which a Court has to record reasons mentioning the circumstances which it takes into consideration for granting permission. Failure to give valid reasons, would vitiate the order and the evidence recorded without permission, cannot be treated as part of the records in the suit. The most desirable and the healthy practice required to be followed by trial Courts is to call upon parties to the suit, as soon as the suit is posted for trial to file memos into Court stating as to whether they intend to be examined or not. If only trial Courts resort to this practice, it would result in proper compliance with rule 3A and that notorious malpractice indulged in would come to an end. A suitable amendment in the Civil Rules of Practice to this effect, would bring about uniformity of procedure in the trial Courts in this State."
28. In Chaganti Lakshma Reddy v. Chaganti Siva Rami Reddy 7, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad examined the entire scope of Order - XVIII of CPC and scheme of examination of witnesses and held in paragraph Nos.7 to 12 as under:
"7. In order to understand the scope of the dispute raised in this revision, it may be relevant to take note of the scheme of Order XVIII of the Code. Order XVIII Rule 1 7 . C.R.P. No.5665 of 2017, decided on 15.12.2017 19 KL,J CRP No.2860 of 2025 of the Code speaks about the right to begin. In every suit, the plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that either in point of law or on some additional facts the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief. In cases where the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and claims on a point of law or on an additional fact that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief, the defendant will have the right to begin.
8. In simple terms, the right to begin incorporated in Order XVIII Rule 1 is what onus probandi is. Once the person on whom the onus to prove a fact lies, goes to the witness box tenders evidence, then the burden of proof would shift to the other party. This is where the distinction between onus and burden lies.
9. Once the party on whom the right to begin lies is determined, he will then be obliged to produce his evidence in terms of Order XVIII Rule 2. Under Order XVIII Rule 2(1), the party having the right to begin should state his case and produce his evidence. After he has produced his evidence, the other party, in terms of Order XVIII Rule 2(2), should state his case and produce his evidence. But notwithstanding anything contained in the Rule, the Court may permit any party to examine any witness at any stage.
10. Order XVIII Rule 3 addresses the question as to what should be done when the burden of proving some of the issues lies on one party. The Rule reads as follows:20
KL,J CRP No.2860 of 2025 Rule-3:- Evidence where several issues -- Where there are several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the party, the party beginning may, at his option, either produce his evidence on those issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party; and, in the latter case, the party beginning may produce evidence on those issues after the other party has produced all his evidence, and the other party may then reply specially on the evidence so produced by the party beginning; but the party beginning will then be entitled to reply generally on the whole case.
11. The option given to a party is actually available only where there are several issues, the burden of proving some of which alone lies on him. The option available under Rule 3 is either to produce his evidence on the issues with respect to which the burden lies on him or to reserve it by way of an answer to the evidence produced by the other party.
12. The first pre condition for invocation of Order XVIII Rule 3 is that there must be several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the party beginning. The second important aspect of Order XVIII Rule 3 is that it is only an option given to a party."
29. In another revision against the very same parties i.e., Chaganti Lakshma Reddy v. Chaganti Siva Rami Reddy 8, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, on examination of facts therein i.e., 8 . C.R.P No.1527 of 2018, decided on 27.04.2018 21 KL,J CRP No.2860 of 2025 the suit was filed for partition and separation possession, plaintiff examined himself as PW.1, his Power of Attorney Holder as PW.2, matter was posted for defendant's evidence. The defendant filed an application under Order - XVIII, Rule - 3A of CPC to permit him to examine other witnesses before examining himself contending that he was hospitalized due to cardiac arrest. The trial Court despite allowing the said application adopted an impractical approach by directing the affidavits in chief-examination of all witnesses to be filed together, the High Court found fault with the said order and the approach of the trial Court. The said portion of the order was set aside. The Court permitted the defendant to file affidavit of witness whom he wishes to examine first, thereafter that witness is examined, the defendant can file affidavit in chief of next witness and so on and so forth.
30. On examination of the facts of the aforesaid case, wherein, the plaintiff therein filed the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction, the plaintiff filed an application under Order - XVIII, Rule - 3A of CPC seeking permission to lead rebuttal evidence after completion of evidence on the side of the defendants, the said application was allowed by the trial Court forcing defendant No.1 to come up with the revision. This Court while setting aside the said order of trial Court, observed that it is open for the plaintiff to continue and complete the evidence on his side and thereafter it is up to the defendants to lead evidence. 22
KL,J CRP No.2860 of 2025
31. The sum and substance of the aforesaid judgment is that if party to the suit intends to examine third party as witness first before their examination, they have to necessarily obtain prior permission from trial Court in terms of Order - XVIII, Rule - 3A of CPC. In the present case, defendant No.1 has filed the aforesaid application under Order - XVIII, Rule - 3A of CPC seeking permission to examine defendant No.8 as DW.1 on the ground that she is suffering from knee joint pains.
32. It is also settled principle that for granting such permission, defendant No.1 has to explain the compelling circumstances. In the present case, except stating that defendant No.1 is suffering from knee joint pains, she has not filed any document. She can seek for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of recording her evidence by filing supporting documents. Instead of doing so, she has filed the aforesaid application seeking permission to examine defendant No.8 as DW.1 only on the ground that she is suffering from knee joint pains, that too, without filing any document in support of her contention.
33. As discussed above, defendant No.1 has filed written statement setting up her own claim. Defendant No.8, subsequent purchaser from defendant Nos.1 to 3 during pendency of the said suit, set up his claim 23 KL,J CRP No.2860 of 2025 through defendant No.1. Therefore, defendant No.1 has to examine herself first and thereafter other defendants.
34. On consideration of the said aspects only and legal position, vide impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the application filed by defendant No.1. It is a reasoned order and well-founded. There is no jurisdictional error to interfere with the said order. Thus, the present revision fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.
35. The present Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. As discussed above, the suit is of the year 2011. Therefore, learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda, is directed to dispose of O.S. No.603 of 2011 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. The plaintiff and the defendants shall co-operate with the trial Court in disposal of the said suit. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 25th September, 2025 Note: L.R. copy be marked.
(B/O.) Mgr