Civil Revision No. 1662 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1662 of 2008 Date of decision: 21.01.2009. Surinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus Simran Kaur ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Navin Batra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.K.Sandhri, Advocate for respondent ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The plaintiff-petitioner insisted before the learned Trial Court that he would examine two indicated witnesses in the first instance before entering the witness box, as his own witness. The defendant-respondent filed an application under Order 18 Rule 3-A of the C.P.C. for resisting that insistence. Learned Trial Court accepted the resistance on behalf of the defendant-respondent. The plaintiff-petitioner is in revision against the impugned order. The provisions of Order 18 Rule 3-A of the CPC are reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:- “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 Civil Revision No. 1662 of 2008 -2- **** examined, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, permits him to appear as his own witness at a later stage.” It is apparent from a perusal of the above quoted provisions of law that a party wishing to appear as a witness shall so appear before any other witness on his behalf has been examined. However, there is an exception thereto which (exception) envisions an eventuality where the Court, for reasons to be recorded, permits that party to appear as own witness at a later stage. In the case before this court, it is common ground that the petitioner did not apply for the leave of the Court in the context. There was, thus, no option before the Court but to decline the reception of evidence of other witnesses before the plaintiff-petitioner entered the witness box as own witness. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, states that the examination of those two witnesses in the first instance is compulsive because it is thereafter only that the plaintiff-petitioner could prove certain documents which would be produced by those witnesses. Be that as it may, it is for the plaintiff-petitioner to make an appropriate presentation before the learned Trial Court which only is competent to take a decision either way. For the moment, it suffice to notice that the impugned order cannot be faulted on any valid score. The petition shall stand dismissed. The stay order dated 18.3..2008 shall stand vacated. The vacation of stay order shall be communicated to the Court concerned forthwith. January 21, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge