ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The respondent filed O.S. No. 1366 of 2000 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, against the petitioner, for recovery of certain amount. The trial of the suit commenced. On behalf of the respondent, her husband was examined as P.W.I and the scribe of the pro-note was examined as P.W.2. Thereafter, the respondent filed I.A. No. 2191 of 2003 under Order 18 Rule 3-A read with Section 151 C.P.C., seeking permission to depose as witness-P.W.3. The application was resisted by the petitioner and ultimately, the trial Court passed an order, dated 1-10-2004, allowing the LA. The same is challenged in this civil revision petitioner.
2. Ms. G. Ramalakshmi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the requirement under Rule 3-A of Order 18 C.P.C is dual in nature. According to her, apart from satisfying itself that there was justifiable reason for belated submission of the application, the trial Court must satisfy itself that the opportunity would not be utilized by the concerned witness to fill the lacunae left in the evidence of other witnesses. She contends that though a semblance of compliance is evident as to the first requirement, the order under revision is totally silent as to the second requirement. She places reliance upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Atipamula Shivalingam v. Atipamula Chinna Narsamma .
3. Sri P. Girish Kumar, the learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the respondent did not depose as a witness in the initial stage, on account of her pregnancy, and that the trial Court was satisfied with the reason for the belated submission of the application. He contends that the petitioner did not express any apprehension that the respondent would fill the lacunae, if she figures as a witness, and in that view of the matter, the trial Court cannot be expected to deal with such an eventuality.
4. Basically, the parties to the suit are required to adduce their evidence by figuring as witnesses, before any other witnesses are examined on their behalf. If conforms to the principle that basically, it is the obligation of the party to prove his case by speaking to the contents of the pleadings, and by examining other witnesses, to corroborate his case. There existed vast number of instance, where the non-party witnesses were examined first and the concerned parties were examined as witnesses, at a later point of time. To curb this, the Parliament stepped in and added Rule 3-A in Order 18 C.P.C. It reads as under:
3A. 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.
This provision reiterates the basic principle of examining witnesses in a suit. However, it permits a party, to a suit, to depose after the non-party witnesses are examined, while according such permissions, reasons are to be recorded.
5. At the first blush, it may appear from the Rule the permission to depose, at a later stage, must be secured before the commencement of the evidence, on behalf of the concerned party. However, the provision has been interpreted by this Court and several other Courts, in such a way, as to mean that the permission under Rule 3-A of Order 18 C.P.C. can be accorded, even at a later stage.
6. In the instant case, trial of the suit commenced, and persons, who were not parties to the suit, were examined as witnesses. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application, pleading that she was pregnant at the commencement of the evidence, and as such, she could not depose as witness. The only objection raised by the petitioner in his counter-affidavit was that the facts pleaded by the respondent were not supported by any documentary evidence and that the requirements of Rule 3-A of Order 18 C.P.C. were not complied with.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously urges that in the absence of any finding recorded by the trial Court that the opportunity given to the respondent would not be utilized to fill the lacunae, it cannot be said that there was proper exercise of power under Rule 3-A of Order 18 C.P.C. by the trial Court. In this regard, it needs to be observed that two considerations would arise, whenever an application is filed under Rule 3-A of Order 18 C.P.C. The first is as to whether there was any justification for the party in not deposing as a witness, before other non-party witnesses were examined; and the second is as to whether the opportunity given to such a witness would be utilized to fill the lacunae, in the evidence of other witnesses examined on behalf of that party.
8. The satisfaction of the Court on the first requirement does not depend upon the plea raised by the opposite party. Even in the absence of any objection raised by the opposite party, the Court is under obligation to satisfy itself that there existed valid ground for the party in not deposing as a witness, at the relevant point of time. The finding recorded by the trial Court, in the instant case, in this regard, is correct and does not warrant any interference.
9. However, the occasion for the Court to express its view on the question as to whether the witness, if permitted under Rule 3-A of Order 18 C.P.C, would utilize the opportunity to fill the lacunae, would depend, upon the nature of objection or plea that may be raised by the opposite party. If an objection, in that regard, is raised, the Court would be under obligation to examine the nature of evidence that has already been recorded, and in a way, may impose certain restrictions, as to the purport of evidence, that can be adduced by such witness. Where however, the opposite party does not rise any objection, the Court cannot be said to be under obligation to deal with this aspect. In this case, the petitioner did not express any apprehension that the respondent would utilize the opportunity to fill the lacunae in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. Hence, it cannot be said that there was any lapse on the part of the trial Court, in dealing with that aspect of the matter. Therefore, no interference is called for with the order under revision.
10. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.