Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Trial Court’s Refusal to Direct Plaintiff to Testify First; Says Order 18 Rule 3A Is Directory and No Prejudice Shown

Case Name: Baba Jeet Singh @ Sant Baba Jeet Singh vs. Sant Jaspal Singh
Date of Judgment: 02 December 2025
Citation: CR-8159-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a revision petition seeking to compel the plaintiff to step into the witness box before examining any other witness. The Court held that Order 18 Rule 3A CPC is directory, not mandatory, and that the Trial Court had exercised its discretion lawfully by permitting official witnesses to be examined first. It found no illegality, perversity or prejudice to the defendant.

Summary: The dispute concerns a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction relating to the headship and properties of a Dera. The plaintiff was directed to lead evidence but, after several opportunities, sought to summon official witnesses along with certain documents. Earlier applications to obtain the defendants’ bank records had been partly declined, yet the Trial Court later allowed summoning of official witnesses, prompting the defendant to seek enforcement of Order 18 Rule 3A, asserting that the plaintiff must testify first. The Trial Court rejected the request, holding that certain foundational documents were not in the plaintiff’s possession and had to be produced through officials, and that this sequence would not prejudice the defendant.

Before the High Court, the petitioner relied on a coordinate Bench ruling emphasising the seriousness of Rule 3A. The Court distinguished that precedent, noting that in the present case the plaintiff had not examined any third-party witness before seeking deviation from the normal sequence. There was no attempt to manipulate the evidentiary process. The Trial Court had also recorded detailed reasons for allowing the plaintiff to examine official witnesses first and had ensured that the defendant would retain full opportunity to cross-examine all witnesses, including the plaintiff. The High Court reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely to substitute a different view when the Trial Court has applied its mind and acted within the bounds of discretion.

Decision: The revision petition was dismissed. The Court held that the Trial Court’s order permitting deviation from the usual sequence of examining the plaintiff first was reasoned, lawful and caused no prejudice to the defendant.