Why was the suit dismissed under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC?

Because the plaintiff failed to lead oral evidence as planned, including the main witness, allowing the court to proceed and decide against the plaintiff.

Can a plaintiff skip the first listed witness and lead others?

The court said no here. Once the plaintiff failed to produce the primary witness set by himself, the court could refuse further oral evidence.

Did the trial court misread Order 18 Rules 2 and 3A CPC?

No. The High Court found no illegality in the trial court’s view on sequence and manner of oral evidence.

Could the lower appellate court rely on findings from the injunction stage?

Yes, as additional support—not the sole basis. The conclusions were concurrent and not shown to be perverse.

Bottom line for students?

Plan your witness order carefully. If you fail to produce your main witness, the court may refuse to take other oral evidence and dismiss the suit under O.17 R.3.

shri-bhagwan-narvadeshwar-ji-maharaj-mandir-v-sunita-singh-manu-up-4692-2018

Shri Bhagwan Narvadeshwar Ji Maharaj Mandir v. Sunita Singh — Oral Evidence, O.18 R.2/3A & Dismissal under O.17 R.3

Author: Gulzar Hashmi India CASE_TITLE: Shri Bhagwan Narvadeshwar Ji v. Sunita Singh PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Order 17 Rule 3, Order 18 Rule 2/3A, oral evidence SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: witness order, injunction findings, dismissal of suit PUBLISH_DATE: 22 Oct 2025 Slug: shri-bhagwan-narvadeshwar-ji-maharaj-mandir-v-sunita-singh-manu-up-4692-2018

Quick Jump

Summary Issues Rules Facts Arguments Judgment Ratio Why It Matters Key Takeaways Mnemonic IRAC Glossary FAQs Related

Hero image for Shri Bhagwan Narvadeshwar Ji v. Sunita Singh case explainer

Quick Summary

Plain English rule: If you set your witness order and then fail to bring your main witness, the court can refuse other oral evidence and dismiss the suit under Order 17 Rule 3. Here, both trial and appellate courts agreed. The High Court found no misreading of Order 18 Rules 2 & 3A.

O.17 R.3 O.18 R.2/3A MANU/UP/4692/2018

Issues

Did the trial court wrongly dismiss the suit under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC despite a pending request to lead oral evidence?
Did the court misinterpret Order 18 Rule 2 read with Rule 3A CPC while rejecting the application to examine witnesses?
Could the lower appellate court rely on the trial court’s injunction-order findings when deciding the appeal on merits?

Rules

Order 17 Rule 3 CPC: If a party fails to produce evidence despite opportunities, the court may proceed to decide the suit.
Order 18 Rule 2 CPC: Prescribes the order of producing evidence.
Order 18 Rule 3A CPC: Controls the sequence for witnesses, especially where a party wants to appear as witness at a particular stage.

Facts — Timeline

Suit filed: Temple (through Manager) sought permanent injunction to stop construction on allegedly disputed land.

Defence: Defendants said the land was never in dispute.

Witness list: Plaintiff listed four witnesses; Itwar Nath was first (main witness).

Application rejected: Trial court refused request to examine other witnesses when the main witness was not produced.

Dismissal: Suit dismissed under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC.

Appeal: Lower appellate court agreed with the trial court’s approach and result.

Timeline for Shri Bhagwan Narvadeshwar Ji v. Sunita Singh

Arguments (Appellant vs Respondent)

Appellant (Temple)

Court should have allowed oral evidence to start; dismissal under O.17 R.3 was harsh.
O.18 R.2/3A was misread; other listed witnesses should have been examined even if the first was absent.
Appellate court should not have leaned on injunction-stage findings.

Respondent

Plaintiff failed to produce the main witness set by himself; O.17 R.3 applied.
Evidence must follow the chosen order; court rightly refused to reshuffle on the fly.
Appellate court used trial findings only additionally, not exclusively.

Judgment

Held: No illegality or manifest error in rejecting the application under Order 18 Rule 3A. The trial court rightly dismissed the suit under Order 17 Rule 3. The findings are concurrent and not vitiated by non-consideration or misreading.

The lower appellate court could consider trial findings (including those from the injunction stage) as additional support while deciding the appeal on merits.

Judgment illustration for Shri Bhagwan Narvadeshwar Ji v. Sunita Singh

Ratio Decidendi

Failing to produce the main listed witness allows the court to refuse other oral evidence and proceed under O.17 R.3.
The sequence and manner of evidence under O.18 R.2/3A must be respected once chosen.
Appellate reliance on trial findings as additional reasoning is permissible.

Why It Matters

Litigants must plan evidence carefully. Your witness order matters. Default at that stage can close the door on oral evidence and lead straight to dismissal.

Key Takeaways

Lead your first-listed witness as promised—or risk losing oral evidence.
Courts can decide under O.17 R.3 if you fail to produce evidence in time.
O.18 R.2/3A controls evidence sequence; sudden reshuffles may be refused.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “FIRST IN LINE — OR FALL IN FINE.”

Fix: Set witness order thoughtfully.
Follow: Produce the main (first) witness.
Fail? Court may refuse others and decide under O.17 R.3.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Whether dismissal under O.17 R.3 and rejection under O.18 R.2/3A were justified; whether appellate reliance on trial findings was proper.
Rule	O.17 R.3 (decision on default to lead evidence); O.18 R.2/3A (sequence of oral evidence).
Application	Plaintiff failed to produce the main witness; court kept the chosen sequence and declined other witnesses; appellate court used trial findings additionally.
Conclusion	No illegality; dismissal sustained; concurrent findings stand.

Glossary

Order 17 Rule 3: Lets the court decide the suit if a party defaults in producing evidence despite chances given.
Order 18 Rule 2: Sets the order in which parties must present their evidence.
Order 18 Rule 3A: Regulates when and how a party appears as a witness, affecting the sequence of witnesses.

FAQs

Yes, if the party defaults in leading evidence as per its own plan, the court can decide under O.17 R.3.

Generally yes. Courts expect parties to follow their own witness order unless leave to vary is properly sought and justified.

They can refer to them as additional support, as long as the final decision rests on merits and evidence.

Prepare witnesses well. If your lead witness is unavailable, move an appropriate application to adjust sequence with reasons.