Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the written statement filed by the first defendant was adopted by the defendants 2 to 7 and the first defendant was examined as D.W.1 before the Court below. According to him, the fourth defendant should not be examined as leave had not been obtained from the Court. It was also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs that the first defendant is the father of the fourth defendant and they have engaged the same counsel to defend their case, hence, after examination of the first defendant as DW1, if the fourth defendant is examined as D.W.2, that would fill up the lacuna and prejudice the rights of the petitioners/plaintiffs. In this regard, learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to Order XVIII Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows:

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."

As per Order XVIII Rule 3 A of the Code of Civil Procedure, if any party witness has to be examined after examining a non-party witness leave must be obtained from the Court by assigning reason for seeking permission to examine the party witness at a later stage. However, the same is not applicable for examining witnesses.