HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5994 OF 2009, DATED 14TH DECEMBER, 2009. BETWEEN. Aleuri Showbhagyawathi ….Petitioner and Bantu Butchi Babu ..Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5994 OF 2009. ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 02.12.2009 passed in I.A.No.808 of 2009 in O.S.No. 109 of 2001 on the ﬁle of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, whereby and whereunder the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge allowed the application ﬁled by the defendant under Section 151 CPC and permitted him to examine himself as a witness on his behalf. As the respondent/defendant lodged a caveat, notice in this revision has been served on the Counsel appearing on his behalf. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The background facts, in a nutshell, leading to ﬁling of this revision by the plaintiﬀ in O.S.No. 109 of 2001 are: The plaintiﬀ ﬁled the suit being O.S.No. 109 of 2001 seeking injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiﬀ closed his evidence. Thereafter, the defendant reported the Court that he did not choose to examine himself and he sought permission to examine the witnesses. After making such a statement, he examined three witnesses on his behalf as DWs. 1 to 3. Thereafter, he ﬁled an application under Section 151 C.P.C., seeking permission of the Court to examine himself as witness on his behalf. The plaintiff filed the counter resisting the application. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the application, the defendant stated as under: “ I submit that the above named respondent/plaintiﬀ ﬁled the above suit against me seeking the relief of injunction. The respondent/plaintiﬀ evidence was already closed. I was advised to prove my defence through the documents. The witnesses i.e. D.W.1-Dasoju Brahma Chary and D.W.3-Gandham Laxmamma did not support my case and the documents. As such I was forced to come into witness bock and to produce the documents. I submit that I was advised to not come into witness box to adduce my evidence as documents ﬁled by me and the witnesses summoned by me were suﬃcient to prove my case. As such the same was reported to the Honourable Court and the Honourable Court endorsed the same on record on 27.4.2009. Unfortunately the witnesses summoned by me were turned hostile and they did not support my case and they answered the questions posed to them by my counsel in negative manner by saying ‘I do not’. As such the time come up for me to enter into the witness box with some more documents to prove my case. As such it is just and essential to accord permission to ﬁle my evidence aﬃdavit and come into witness box to explain my case.” The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to allow the application by an order dated 02.12.2009. Hence this Civil Revision Petition ﬁled by the plaintiffs. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiﬀ submits that the Trial Court except elucidating the power of the Court under Order 18 Rule 3(A) of CPC, has not assigned any reason for allowing the application ﬁled by the defendant to examine himself as witness after examining other witnesses as D.Ws. 1 to 3. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Devarapathi Pattabhi Ramaiah Vs. Daruhiri Lakshmi Prasanna { 1998(2) ALD 783 (DB)}. Paragraph 13 of the said judgment is relevant, which reads as under: “ Coming to the second submission, that the reasons given by the respondent/plaintiﬀ in her aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the I.A are not suﬃcient to enable the Court to record its satisfaction as contemplated under Rule.3A of the Code of Civil procedure deserves consideration. The material allegation in this behalf in the affidavit are as follows: ‘We are relying upon the Will dated 4.6.1969 (Ex.A.2) and Codicil dated 20.10.1975 executed by Late Atchayamma under the Codicil, late Atchayamma bequeathed the plaint schedule properties in our favour. Our father is well acquitted with the facts of the case and so he is looking after the above suit on our behalf. As any how our father is to be examined on our behalf to speak to the facts in detail, we bona ﬁde felt that our evidence would only be a mere repetition of what our father is to depose and so did not get ourselves examined earlier. While my father was giving evidence as PW.1, he was cross- examined on behalf of the defendant as he is going to examine us or not. My father stated that he may or may not examine us. But we are now advised to give evidence in order to avoid any comment by the defendant. As I have already examined some witnesses, I pray that in view of the above circumstances, I may be permitted to get myself examined in the above suit. It is therefore just and necessary in the interest of justice that the Honourable Court may be pleased to permit me to get myself examined in the above suit. Else, my self and the ﬁrst petitioner will be put to serious loss’ A mere reading of the above pleadings show that the petitioner is clearly intending to ﬁll up the gaps left by the other witnesses examined on her behalf. This is precisely what the Code does not permit and only to prevent this mischief, the Code of Civil Procedure is amended by introducing Rule 3A of the code of Civil Procedure. The learned Counsel for the respondents has not given the satisfactory explanation in this regard. We therefore accept the second submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and therefore allow the revision petition.” The learned Counsel for the respondent/defendant submits that the order passed by the Trial Court is in accordance with the provisions under Order 18 Rule 3(A) of C.P.C. and therefore the order impugned in this revision does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Kondaveeti Pranchis Vs. Mallarapu Lurdamma {1994(3) ALT 425}. There is no dispute with regard to the power of the Court under Order 18 Rule 3(A) of CPC. This aspect has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Devarapathi Pattabhi Ramaiah’s case (supra). The Trial Court has to assign reasons for permitting the defendant to examine himself as witness after examination of the three witnesses as DWs. 1 to 3. A perusal of the order impugned in this revision does not disclose any reason for permitting the defendant to examine himself as a witness. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order impugned in this revision and remand the matter back to the trial Court for consideration afresh and pass appropriate order after hearing both parties. Accordingly, the order dated 02.12.2009 passed in I.A.No. 808 of 2009 in O.S.No. 109 of 2001 on the ﬁle of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court below for consideration afresh. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ----------------------------------------------------- JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY DATED 14T H DECEMBER, 2009. Msnr.