Short Note : 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 29-7-76 whereby the trial Court, after the closure of the evidence of both the parties, allowed the non-applicant's application to examine one witness Chandmal. Held : I have heard the learned counsel from both the sides and perused the record. It may be noted that the witness Chandmal was cited by the applicant, but was given up. Certain documents have already been produced in evidence. The non-applicant wanted to put these documents to witness Chandmal who was given up by the applicant. The trial Court, therefore, found that it was in the interest of justice to allow the non-applicant to examine the witness at this stage. It may be pointed out that Order 18, rule 2, sub-rule (4) C.P. C. as substituted by the C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1976 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the Court may for reasons to be recorded, direct or permit any party to examine any witness as any stage. It is, thus clear that the impugned order of the. Court is not without jurisdiction. The discretion exercised by the Court below cannot, in the circumstances, he called unjuditious or arbitrary. There is, therefore, no ground for making any interference by this Court in revision. Revision dismissed.