1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Writ Petition No.348 of 2011 Shri Raosaheb D. Desai Son of Shri Dattajirao Dessai of major age, Occupation business, Residing at “Dattaprasad Apartments”, Devlay, Khandola, Marcela, Goa. …... Petitioner. V e r s u s Shri Giridharlal Mohanlal Gangani, Son of Shri Mohanlal R. Gangani, of major age, Builder and Developer, Galaxy Building, Near Mahalaxmi Temple, Panaji, Goa. …. Respondent. Mr. S.N. Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Respondent absent though served. Coram: A. P. Lavande, J. Date: 16th August, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent has chosen not to put in 2 appearance inspite of service. Rule. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges order dated 30/3/2011 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mapusa in Regular Civil Suit NO.130/2002/E by which an application filed under Order 18 Rule 3A dated 4/3/2011 has been disposed of. 3. The petitioner herein filed a suit against the respondent for specific performance and other reliefs, which was contested by the defendant. After the plaintiff examined himself and closed his case, the defendant filed application dated 4/3/2011 purportedly to be under Order 18 Rule 3A of C.P.C. In the body of the application it has been mentioned that the defendant wants to examine i) Mrs. Sharda Raosaheb Dessai, (ii) Miss Sheetal Raosaheb Dessai and iii) Miss Shilpa Raosaheh Dessai who are close 3 relatives of the plaintiff as his witnesses. It has been further stated that the defendant wants to examine himself only after examining the said above witnesses. However, in the prayer clause, no specific prayer has been made seeking permission to examine himself after examining the said witnesses. 4. The trial Court by the impugned order has allowed the defendant to examine the said three witnesses and ordered the defendant to pay batta charges and process fees. 5. Bare perusal of the impugned order discloses that the learned trial Judge has not given any finding as to whether the defendant is permitted to examine himself after examining the witnesses mentioned by him. In terms of Order 18 Rule 3A when a party himself wishes to appear as a witness, he shall so appear before any other 4 witness on his behalf has been examined, unless the Court, for the reasons to be recorded, permits him to appear as his own witness at a later stage. 6. While passing the impugned order the Trial Court has not specifically mentioned that the defendant is permitted to examine himself after examining the said three witnesses on his behalf. Admittedly, the Trial Court has not dealt with the aspect of permitting the defendant to examine himself after examining the said three witnesses by giving reasons in terms of Order 18 Rule 3A. On this ground alone the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. In the result therefore, the impugned order dated 30/3/2011 is quashed and set aside. The Trial Court to decide the application afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties in the light of the 5 observations made and in accordance with law. The parties to appear before the Trial Court on 26/9/2011 at 10 a.m. 8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. A. P. Lavande, J. Ap/-