MOHD AQIL Vs. ALIMULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contention in this revision is that the court below committed a manifest illegality and erred in the exercise of its jurisdiction in allowing the plaintiff to be examined after he had examined a witness of his. It was further contended that the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 3-A, C.P.C. were mandatory. It was urged that in view of the above the plaintiff had to be examined first and before any other witness of his was examined. It was further urged that where the plaintiff proposes to examine himself later, he has to make an application to the court before the examination of any witness of his. This had not been done in this case. THE application for permission to examine the plaintiff was made later. It was urged that the court had no jurisdiction to allow the prayer made by the plaintiff. I am unable to accept the above contentions. THE provision of Order XVIII, Rule 3-A are directory. THE Rule does not contain any penal provision to make it mandatory. Since the provision is directory, it is open to the trial Court to grant or not grant an opportunity to a party to examine himself later. THE contention that the court has no jurisdiction to; order the examination of the party later unless such an application is made even before a single witness of his is examined is not envisaged from the language of the provision. THE very language of Rule 3-A gives an option to the trial court to permit the examination of the party later, i.e., after the examination of the other witness or witnesses of his provided the trial court is satisfied that it is necessary to do so on the facts and circumstances of the case. Rule 3-A however enjoing upon the court to indicate reasons for the order permitting a party to be examined later. If reasons are mentioned in the order then there is a sufficient compliance with the provisions of Rule 2-A. In the present case the reasons have been indicated in the order of the court below. For the reasons given above, I do not find any error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the court below. Consequently, this revision must fail and is accordingly rejected.