Best evidence principle limits exemption from witness testimony when a party is best placed to prove the facts.

Order 18 Rule 3A CPC regulates the sequence of witness examination, but it does not justify exempting a party from giving evidence when that party is best placed to speak to the facts in issue. The court applied the best evidence principle and noted that, where a party bearing the burden of proof withholds such evidence, the opposite side may rely on adverse inference under Section 114 illustration (g) of the Evidence Act. An exemption in such circumstances would limit the court's ability to receive the best available evidence. The exemption from tendering evidence was therefore set aside, while the rest of the trial court's order remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a defendant who is in a position to adduce his own evidence can be exempted from tendering evidence and permitted to examine his son instead.

Analysis: Order 18 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 governs the sequence in which a party may examine witnesses, but it does not justify exempting a party from giving evidence where that party is in the best position to speak to the facts in issue. The Court applied the principle that the best available evidence should be placed before the court, and that if a party with the burden of proof withholds such evidence, the opposite party may seek an adverse inference under Section 114 illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Allowing exemption in such circumstances would improperly curtail the court's ability to ensure reception of the best evidence.

Conclusion: The exemption from tendering evidence was set aside, while the remainder of the trial court's order was left undisturbed.

---