ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7578 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7578 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7578 OF 2008 M/s.Shah Industries & Anr. ...Petitioners. Vs. Vadhani Industrial Estate ...Respondents. Mr.Sachin B.Jain i/by M/s.Kiran Jain & Co. for the Petitioners. Mr.R.N.Bhagatijee i/by. M/s.Tamhane & Co. for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 19th November, 2008. : 19th November, 2008. : 19th November, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . The Petitioners-Plaintiffs’ an affidavit of examination in chief of his witness P.W.3 is rejected, as the Defendants raised the objection by notice of Motion not allowing to examine P.W.3, therefore, this petition. The suit is already fixed for cross examination of P.W.3. Merely because Plaintiff No.1 has examined himself as P.W.1 and thereafter examined other partner P.W.2 that itself cannot be the reason to deprive the Plaintiffs to examine any other witnesses, though he may be partner of the same firm. There is no question of seeking permission under Order 18 Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "C.P.C.") to examine their other partners. Order 18 ( 2 ) Rule 3-A reads thus:- "3-A. "3-A. "3-A. Party Party Party to appear before other witnesses.- to appear before other witnesses.- 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." 2. The object and purpose of Order 18 Rule 3-A cannot be interpreted to restrict the rights of the parties to lead evidence of his witnesses. This provision is directory. In a given case Court may pass appropriate order. 3. After examining the other witnesses specially when Plaintiffs or party desire and wants to lead the evidence to support of his case. There is no total prohibition or a bar that Court should not grant such permission. On the contrary, it is desirable that full opportunity should be given to the parties to the proceedings to put their evidence at the earliest possible stage. ( 3 ) 4. In the present case, it is plaintiffs’ firm which is leading the evidence, one after other, as per the list of witnesses already given. There is nothing on record that it is intended to fill up the lacuna. The evidence of Defendants not even started. Every partners of a party may or may not aware a full facts. It is necessary to prove the fact and the case by all possible means including by examining concerned witnesses. In commercial matters or even otherwise a series of transactions need to be proved by the parties through their witnesses. This provision is wrongly invoked and applied. 5. Taking all this into account in my view, the impugned order need to be set aside and it is set aside accordingly. The matter be proceeded in accordance with law. 6. The Petition is allowed, accordingly. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)