AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gokal Chand Mital, J.—It cannot be disputed that the provisions of Order 18 Rule 3-A of the CPC are mandatory. But it is open to the parties not to adhere to the strict provisions of law arid a party may waive the rights which could accrue under the aforesaid provisions. The case in hand is an instance of the type.
The plaintiffs wanted that Ruldu Faro, who is their near relation and their attorney, should appear on their behalf as a witness. For that reason when first two witnesses were being examined on their behalf, Ruldu Ram was made to go out of the Court at the instance of the defendant and this was done because he was to appear as a witness later on. When the turn to examine Ruldu Ram as a witness of the plaintiffs came, the defendant filed an application that his statement cannot be recorded in view of the prevision of Order 18 Rule 3-A of the Code.
The trial Court dismissed the application of the defendant saying that the defendant impliedly consented that Ruldu Ram would be examined on behalf of the plaintiffs at a later stage. The inference drawn by the trial Court is not wrong. Accordingly, I decline to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction.
Dismissed.