ORDER
V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. This civil revision petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for brevity, ‘the Code’) challenging the order dated 1 -4-2002 passed in IA No.332 of 2002 in OS No.6 of 1996 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda. The revision petitioner is the 6th defendant in the suit. Be it noted that she came on record as 6th defendant in the suit OS No.6 of 1996 filed by the plaintiff-1st respondent herein.
2. The plaintiff-1st respondent filed the suit for cancellation of registered
sale deed executed by 1st detendant-2nd respondent herein in favour of 6th defendant-revision petitioner herein. In the said suit OS No.6 of 1996, the plaintiff also sought for perpetual injunction in addition to cancellation of the said registered sale deed.
3. After the plaintiff closing her evidence, tke 1st defendant 2nd respondent herein inspite of affording opportunities to her to adduce evidence did not come forward to give evidence and ultimately it appears she filed a memo before the Court stating that she has no evidence and she would lead evidence after the closure of the evidence of 6th defendant, who is the petitioner herein. But, the Court did not pass any order on the memo filed by the 1st defendant respondent herein. Be that as it may, the 6th defendant-petitioner herein was examined on 11-3-2000 and she also examined as many as five witnesses in support of her case and also marked certain documents including the registered sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in her favour, which was marked as Ex.B2. The matter was posted for arguments and the plaintiffs arguments were hoard.
4. After the plaintiffs arguments, when the matter was posted for the arguments of the defendants, the revision petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein (6th defendant and 1st defendant respectively) filed two separate applications. The petitioner herein filed IA No.332 of 2002, under Section 151 of the Code to re-open the suit to enable the petitioner to adduce further evidence. The 1st defendant 2nd respondent herein also filed IA No.333 of 2002, under Section 151 of the Code praying the Court to re-open the suit for the purpose of recording her evidence. By two separate orders passed on 1-4-2002, the trial Court dismissed both the IAs. The 6th defendant filed the present civil revision petition against the order passed in IA No.332 of 2002.
5. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, Mr. B. Venkat Rama Rao, submits that the petitioner was under the impression that the 1st defendant who is the vendor of the petitioner would come into the witness box on her own and adduce evidence after the closure of the evidence of the petitioner and since IA No.333 of 2002 filed by the 1 st defendant to re-open the suit to adduce her evidence is now dismissed, if the petitioner is not allowed to adduce further evidence it would cause prejudice to her as there is collusion between the plaintiff (1st respondent herein) and the 1st defendant (2nd respondent herein) and therefore prays this Court to allow the civil revision petition by setting aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court.
6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent (plaintiff), Mr. L. Prabakar Reddy, submits that in the absence of any such permission granted by the Court to the 1st defendant on the memo filed by her to come into the witness box to adduce evidence after closing of the evidence of 6th defendant, the Court cannot re-call a party to the proceedings to lead evidence at a later stage. He would also submit that in passing the impugned order the trial Court has exercised sound discretion which does not occasion failure of Justice for the petitioner and therefore the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Now the short point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner, in law, is entitled to re-open the suit at the stage of arguments.
8. Rule 3-A of Order XVIII of the Code stipulates that where a party himself wishes to appear as a witness, he/she shall so appear before any other witness on his/ her behalf has been examined, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded permits him/her to appear as his/her own witness at a later stage.
9. A reading of the order passed in IA No.333 of 2002 which is placed before this Court now shows that the 2nd respondent herein (1st defendant) indeed filed a memo when her turn came to lead evidence reporting no evidence for the present and she would adduce evidence later after closure of the evidence of the petitioner herein (6th defendant). As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge in the order passed in IA No.333 of 2002 the Court did not pass any orders on the memo filed by the 1st defendant, permitting her to lead evidence at a later stage. Be it noted that the plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed executed in favour of 1st defendant, therefore it was incumbent on the 1st defendant, having chosen to be a witness to examine herself before any other witnesses on her behalf-are examined. Further she had an option to take the permission of the Court and then come as witness at a later stage. Mere filing of the memo to that effect would not enable the 1st defendant (2nd respondent herein) to seek permission at a later stage to come into the witness box as a witness. This aspect of the matter has a bearing on the question that arose for consideration,
10. Insofar as the case of the petitioner (6th defendant) is concerned, admittedly she was examined as witness and she also examined as many as five witnesses. It is her case that she is the bonafide purchaser of the property in question from the 1st defendant and therefore having regard to the issues framed she has to prove the sale deed Ex.B2 executed by 2nd respondent (1st defendant) in her favour. I am afraid I cannot agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the petitioner would be prejudiced if she is not allowed to prove the registered sale deed which is marked as Ex.B2. He apprehends that without proper proof the sale deed executed by plaintiff in favour of
the 1st defendant is sham and nominal document. This submission has no merits as the petitioner has already examined as many as five witnesses on her behalf. Further, as rightly observed by the trial Court the title of the vendor of the petitioner i.e., title of the 1st defendant is itself in question, the petitioner being a subsequent purchaser has to either sink or sail with the 1st defendant. Furthermore when the application of the 1st defendant to examine herself to adduce evidence itself is dismissed, the petitioner now cannot be permitted to adduce further evidence by re-opening the suit at this stage.
11. For the above reasons, the civil revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.