JUDGMENT D. Dubey, Member - This revision has been filed by Putti Lal and others defendant-revisionists, against the order dated 6.6.78 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner. Faizabad Division, in revision No. 93/1351/Barabanki. 2. The revisionists have been represented by Sri S.D. Pathak, Advocate and the counsel for the opposite parties did not appear in spite of due notice. The opposite parties also did not come to the court. 3. I have heard the Darned counsel for the revisionists and perused the record of the case and have also examined the relevant documents available on record. 4. From the order of the trial court it appears that the oral evidence of the plaintiffs and defendants had been concluded and the case was fixed for arguments when the counsel for the plaintiffs requested for the examination of the plaintiff by way of additional evidence. The counsel for the contesting defendants in the trial court contended that the plaintiffs did not reserve their right to produce rebuttal evidence after the close of evidence of the defendants. Therefore, they had no right to adduce any evidence after the case was finally fixed for arguments. The trial court however, "in the interest of justice" permitted the plaintiff to adduce further evidence by way of examining himself as a witness. 5. Aggrieved by the above order of the trial court the defendants filed a revision in the court of the Addl. Commissioner Faizabad who after hearing the parties, going through the record and examining the legal aspect, dismissed the revision and upheld the order passed by the trial court. Hence the defendant revisionists have come up before this court in revision. 6. From the judgment of the learned Additional Commissioner it appears that the defendants had cited a ruling reported in A.I.R. 1969 (Andhra Pradesh) page 82 while challenging the order passed by the trial court. On behalf of the plaintiffs, attention of the Addl. Commissioner was drawn to order 18 rule 2 (4) of the C.P.C. in support of their contention that they had right to adduce evidence even after the plaintiff and defendants have closed their evidence in the trial court. In order to understand the problem it is necessary to examine both the arguments advanced by the parties. 7. I have carefully gone through the ruling reported in AIR, 1969 (A.P.) pages 82 to 84. In order to understand the problem it is necessary to examine both the arguments advanced by the parties. 7. I have carefully gone through the ruling reported in AIR, 1969 (A.P.) pages 82 to 84. The Hon'ble Judge in the instant matter has discussed the provisions Laid down in order 18, Rule 3 of the C.P.C. and has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff willing to adduce evidence by way of rebuttal can exercise his right only when he has expressed his desire to do so before commencement of defendant's evidence. As it is clear from the order 18, Rules framed thereunder deal with hearing of the suit and examination of witnesses by the parties and have Laid down definite procedure for the same. The close study of order 18, Rule 3 clearly indicates that the plaintiff is entitled to produce evidence on those issues which are to be proved by the defendant after the defendant has produced all his evidence but the option given to the parties contemplated under order 18 Rule C.P.C. will have to be exercised only at or before time when other party that has got right to lead evidence actually in beginning and not afterwards. In the present case it is clear that no option as contemplated under order 18 Rule 3 C.P.C. had been taken by the plaintiffs. 8. The defendant-revisionists have taken shelter behind order XVIII Rule 2 (4) of the C.P.C. which reads as under :- Rule 2 (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the court may, for reasons to be recorded direct or permit any party to examine any witness at any stage. The above rule clearly indicates procedure for taking down evidence adduced by the parties and by adding sub-rule 2 (4) the trial courts have been given discretionary power to allow any party to examine any witness at any stage. The discretion so given by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad is to be exercised carefully and judiciously. It clearly indicates that while permitting any party to examine any witness at any stage the court must record reasons for such permission. In the present case the learned trial court has recorded absolutely no reason for permitting the plaintiff to appear in the witness box after the close of the evidence by the parties. It clearly indicates that while permitting any party to examine any witness at any stage the court must record reasons for such permission. In the present case the learned trial court has recorded absolutely no reason for permitting the plaintiff to appear in the witness box after the close of the evidence by the parties. It has simply mentioned that in the interest of justice the plaintiff should be allowed to examine himself. To my mind this is no reason in the eyes of law it does not fulfil the requirements of order XVIII Rule 2 (4) of the C.P.C. as amended by the Hon'ble High Court Allahabad. 9. In view of the above I allow the revision, set aside the orders passed by the lower courts and direct the trial court to proceed in the matter and to decide the suit on the basis of the evidence already produced by the parties before it.