IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 214 of 2011 Decided on: 14.07.2011 Lal Singh …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 25.05.2011, whereby evidence of the plaintiff has been closed and the plaintiff, who was present in person, was not permitted to be examined on the ground that permission under Order 18 Rule 3 (A) CPC had not been taken before examining the other witnesses. 2. The learned trial Court may be technically right in stating that Order 18 Rule 3 (A) CPC provides that a party should appear as its own witness at the first instance before 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -: 2 :- other witnesses are examined. It is also apparent that in case, the party does not want to appear at the first instance before other witnesses, it must make a request in this behalf to the Court, who should, for reasons to be recorded, permit the party to appear as its witness later. 3. A perusal of the order sheet shows that the plaintiff had not examined any witness till 25.05.2011. On 25.05.2011, one witness was examined and on the same day, the plaintiff was sought to be examined, but his evidence was closed. A party is not aware about the niceties of law and if the plaintiff was present, there was no reason why he should not be allowed to be examined before the other witnesses. There is nothing on record to show that any severe prejudice will be caused to the State in case the plaintiff is permitted to be examined at a later stage. 4. The purpose of Order 18 Rule 3 (A) CPC is that the plaintiff should first put up his case so that his witnesses can be confronted with the statement of the plaintiff. The present case relates to claim of damages and much is not going to turn around the statements of the witnesses. Basically, the statement of plaintiff is very necessary. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the petition is allowed and the plaintiff is permitted to be examined as his own witness. The case is fixed before the learned trial Court on 27th July, 2011, for defendant's evidence. On that day itself, -: 3 :- the plaintiff shall be first examined and in case the witnesses of defendant are present, they can be examined after the examination of plaintiff. In case, defendant's witnesses are not present, another date can be given for the purpose. In case, the plaintiff does not appear as his witness on the said date, the present petition shall be deemed to be dismissed. 5. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge July 14, 2011 (rajni)