JUDGMENT V. D. Misra, C. 3.—This judgment will dispose of Civil Revision Nos, 178, 189, 199, 209, 216 and 217 of 1980 since common question of law arises in these petitions. 2. Whether a party who wishes to appear as a witness is required to obtain the permission of the court to appear at a later stage before any other witness on his behalf has been examined or the party can ask for the permission at any stage before concluding his evidence? Is the question which falls for determination in these revisions. The facts are rot relevant. Suffice it to say that in all the cases either the plaintiff or the defendant did cot ask for permission to examine himself at a later stage before examining his witnesses. The trial court has refused permission in view of the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Civil Revision No. 197 of 1979, Chet Ram v. Rajinder Kaur, decided on 7th May, 1980, where the learned Judge, following a judgment of a learned single Judge of the Orissa High Court in Jagannath Nayak v. Laxminarayan Thakur, [AIR 1978 Orissa 1]. held that rule 3 A of Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires a party to obtain the requisite permission before examining his witnesses. As a Division Bench of Orissa High Court has since overruled the case of Jagannath Nayak, the matter has been referred to a Division Bench of this Court. 3. In the trial of civil suits a practice had grown up to examine the party after the party had examined his witnesses. This perhaps was done in order to fill up the lacuna left by the witnesses. This practice was, from time to time, frowned upon but since the law gave a right to the party to produce and examine his witnesses in the manner he liked the practice could not be curbed. The Law Commission in order to curb this practice, in its 54th Report recommended : "18.3. The Fourteenth Report had recommended that ordinarily, a party who wishes to be examined as a witness should offer himself first, before the other witnesses are examined. The Commission, in its Report on the Code, however, considered it unnecessary to make any such statutory provision. The Fourteenth Report had recommended that ordinarily, a party who wishes to be examined as a witness should offer himself first, before the other witnesses are examined. The Commission, in its Report on the Code, however, considered it unnecessary to make any such statutory provision. It noted that this should be the ordinary rule, but thought that a rigid provision on the subject would not be desirable. 18.4. We think that the amendment recommended in the 14th Report should be carried out. Since the proposed rule will be confined to ordinary cases, the hardships arising from special features of the case, should not present a problem. Having regard to the persistent and notorious malpractice indulged in by litigants in this respect—malpractice which borders on dishonesty —we think that the time has come to insert a statutory provision." 4. The result of the recommendation was the addition of rule 3A in Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 3A reads ; "Where a party himself wishes to appear as a witness, he shall so appear before any other witness on his behalf has been examined, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, permits him to appear as his own witness at a later stage. 5. No doubt this rule is mandatory. It enjoins upon a party, who wishes to appear as a witness, to examine himself first before examining any other witness on his behalf. However, an exception has been made. The court has been given the discretion to allow a party to examine himself later on after examining one or more witnesses on his behalf. But we do not find anything in this rule which compels a party to ask for the requisite permission from the court before he examines his first witness. We cannot overlook the fact that the rule is a procedural one. It is meant to curb a particular evil for the enhancement of justice. It has to be interpreted in such a manner that while the evil is curbed, it does not lead to any injustice. 6. Now it may happen in a particular case that a party bona fide believes that it is not necessary for him to examine himself as his own witness. But developments may take place after he has examined his first witness, which may make it necessary for a party to examine himself. 6. Now it may happen in a particular case that a party bona fide believes that it is not necessary for him to examine himself as his own witness. But developments may take place after he has examined his first witness, which may make it necessary for a party to examine himself. In such circumstances, to refuse the party to examine himself as his witness only on the ground that he should have asked for the requisite permission of the court before examining his first witness would be nothing short of injustice. We find that something similar happened in Civil Revision No. 189 of 1980, Charan Das Sharma v. Madan Lal and others. In that case the plaintiff had filed a suit for a declaration that the decree for possession had been obtained by the defendants by practising-fraud, concealment of material facts and misrepresentation, and so it should be declared a nullity. After the plaintiff had examined three witnesses, he made an application for leading secondary evidence in respect of a document. The application was allowed. Now the plaintiff wanted to examine himself as his witness. This permission was refused simply on the ground that the plaintiff had not obtained the requisite permission from the court before he examined his first witness, 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that unless a party asks for permission to examine himself before examining his other witnesses, the opposite party would be at a loss since the latter may not properly cross-examine the witnesses thinking that the party is not coming in the witness box. This has no force. Rule 1 of Order 16 requires a party to present a list of witnesses who are sought to be examined for giving evidence or producing documents This has to be done before a party starts producing his evidence under rule 2 of Order 18. There fore, a party will always know whether the opposite party is going to examine himself as his own witness or not. It may also be noticed that under sub- rule (3) of rule 1 of Order 16 the court has been given discretion to permit a party to call any witness whose name does not appear in the list provided the party shows sufficient cause to the omission of the name of such a witness. It may also be noticed that under sub- rule (3) of rule 1 of Order 16 the court has been given discretion to permit a party to call any witness whose name does not appear in the list provided the party shows sufficient cause to the omission of the name of such a witness. This discretion may, in proper cases, be extended to permit a party to examine himself though his name was not mentioned in the list of witnesses. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the party who wishes to examine himself as a witness later on should seek the permission of the court before examining his first witness. We find that a similar view was taken by a Division Bench of Orissa High Court in Maguni Dei v. Gouranga Sahu and others, [AIR 1978 Orissa 228], over-ruling its judgment in Jagan Nath Nayaks case. A Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mjs. Kwality Restaurant Amritsar v. Satinder Khanna Amritsar t [AIR 1979 Punjab and Haryana 72], as well as a Full Bench of the same Court in The Amritsar Improvement Trust v. Smt. Ishri Devi, [1979 PLR 354], after taking note of the existing case law differed from the view taken by Orissa High Court in Jagannath Nayaks case and accepted the view taken by the Division Bench of that Court in Maguni DeVs case. Our attention has also been drawn to a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Nagorao Nilkanthrao Deshmukh v. Keshag Govind Patil, reported in 1979 Maharashtra Law Journal 09, which has relied upon the aforementioned Division Bench judgments of Orissa, and Punjab and Haryana High Courts. 8. We, therefore, hold that a party who wishes to examine himself at a later stage is not bound to ask for the permission of the court before examining his first witness, and that the party can ask for the permission at a later stage. However, we must emphasise that the trial courts should remember that it is the duty of a party to examine himself first in case the party wishes to appear as his own witness. The discretion which has been given by the exception has not to be exercised lightly. It is for this reason that it is enjoined upon the courts to record their reasons in writing while allowing the party to examine himself at a later stage. The discretion which has been given by the exception has not to be exercised lightly. It is for this reason that it is enjoined upon the courts to record their reasons in writing while allowing the party to examine himself at a later stage. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any hard and fast rules for the exercise of this discretion. The facts of each case are bound to vary. But the party must have some weighty reasons to convince the court for not examining himself first before the court exercises its discretion in favour of the party. It may be repeated that rule 3A has been framed to curb the evil practice of a party examining himself last. 9. We, therefore, allow the petitions and remand the cases to the trial courts with the direction that courts shall decide the applications made by the parties to examine themselves in the light of our judgment. Petitions allowed.