Report No. 27
Order XVIII, rule 2
This follows local amendments1-2. The object is to empower the court to direct or permit a party to examine any witness at any stage. A similar recommendation was made by the Civil Justice Committee also3.
1. See Calcutta Amendment, Order 18, rule 2A and Andhra Pradesh, Madras, Punjab, etc. Amendments to Order 18, rule 2.
2. The provision in the Madhya Pradesh Amendment (Order 18, rule 2) is expressed in the widest terms.
3. Civil Justice Committee (1924-25) Report, p. 564, middle.
Order XVIII, rule 3
The Allahabad Amendment to Order XVIII, rule 3, which inserts elaborate provisions regarding "statement of case", etc., has been considered. It is felt that no such change is necessary.
Order XVIII, rule 3 and examination of party
The Fourteenth Report1 has recommended that, ordinarily, a party who wishes to be examined as a witness should offer himself first, before the other witnesses are examined. It is, however, considered unnecessary to make any such statutory provision. This should be the ordinary rule2; but a rigid provision on the subject does not seem to be desirable.
1. 14th Report, Vol. I.
2. 14th Report, Vol, I.
Order XVIII, rule 5
The Fourteenth Report1 has recommended that a provision empowering the Judge to dictate the verbatimrecord of evidence should be inserted, and that the rules on the subject should be brought into line with the more elaborate provisions contained in section 356 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
After some consideration, it is felt that the existing provisions are adequate. It is thought, that the existing wording "under the personal direction " should cover dictation. The memorandum under Order XVIII, rule 8 should, of course, continue to be made2.
1. Cf. Gurdial Kaur v. Pyara Singh, AIR 1962 Punj 180 (181).
3. Cf. Pramoda v. Harish, ILR 55 Cal 1084: AIR 1929 Cal 78 (Page J.).