K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THIS CRP is preferred against the order dated 16th June 1981 passed by the learned Prl. Civil Judge, Bangalore dist. , in O. S. No. 124 of 1978 allowing the application (LA. No. 7) filed by the first defendant under Order 18, rule 3a CPC (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for preventing the plaintiff from entering the witness box to give evidence. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiff has examined the witnesses on his behalf. Before examining the witnesses on his behalf, he did not seek permission of the Court for tendering himself as a witness in the case after the examination of the other witnesses on his behalf. Thereafter, without seeking permission, he has tried to tender himself as a witness and it is at this stage the 1st defendant has filed I. A. No. 7 for preventing the plaintiff from giving evidence on the ground that he should have got himself examined in the beginning before the examination of the other witnesses on his behalf. The learrned trial Judge relying upon Rule 3a of Order 18 of the Code, has allowed the application and has held that as the plaintiff has not appeared as a witness before any other witness is examined on his behalf, he has no right to give evidence and his right to give evidence is lost. Consequently, the learned Judge has allowed! the application and has prevented the plaintiff from examining himself as a witness, without considering the question as to whether the plaintiff can be permitted to give evidence even after he has examined the other witnesses on his behalf. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, i,t is contended that no such application can be maintained by the first defendant in the suit as it is for the Court to permit or not to permit the plaintiff to appear as his own witness even after the examination of the other witnesses is done on his behalf. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, i,t is contended that no such application can be maintained by the first defendant in the suit as it is for the Court to permit or not to permit the plaintiff to appear as his own witness even after the examination of the other witnesses is done on his behalf. It is also further contended that under Rule 3a of Order 18 of the Code, even in a case where the party does not appear as a witness on his behalf and also does not obtain permission from the Court before the examination of the other witnesses on his behalf, it is open for the Court to permit him to appear as a witness on his behalf even after the examination of the other witnesses on his behalf; similarly it is still open for the party to seek permission of the Court to appear as witness on his behalf and in such a situation alko, it is always open for the Court to permit the the party to appear as a witness on his behalf at a later stage and as such, the learned civil Judge is not correct in holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to give evidence. It is also further contended that the provisions contained in Rule 3a of Order 18 of the Code, being provisions pertaining to procedure, the same should be interpreted in such a way so as to advance the ends of justice and as such, no narrow interpretation should be placed so as to defeat the right of a party to give evidence or to come in the way of the Court to do substantial justice to the parties. This provision, though it has been newly added by Sec. 69 (ii) of Act No. 104 of 1976, has already been interpreted by the High Courts of Punjab and Haryana and Orissa, in Kwality Restaurant, Amritsar v. Satinder Khanna (1) and in Maguni Dei v. Gouranga Sahu (2), ( 4 ) 1. Rule 3a of Order 18 of the Code, reads as follows:3a. Party to appear before other witnesses.-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. Rule 3a of Order 18 of the Code, reads as follows:3a. Party to appear before other witnesses.-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. "a bare reading of the aforesaid Rule makes it clear that it is always open for the Court to grant permission to the party who has failed to appear as his own witness before examining the other witnesses on his behalf. Of course if the party fails to appear as his own witness before examining the other witnesses on his behalf he will not be entitled to appear as his own witness subsequently without the permission of the Court. The question as to such a permission is to be granted or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is a matter lying within the region of procedure. The Court while granting or refusing to grant such permission is required to recoreasons. 4. 2. The stage at which the permission is to be sought is not provided by the Rule. Therefore, it is open for a party to seek such permission either before the other witnesses are examined on his behalf or at a later stage. While considering the scope and effect of a rule relating to procedure, it is necessary to keep in view that rules of procedure are intended to subserve and facilitate the cause of justice and not to govern or obstruct it. Therefore, rule 3a of Order 18 of the Code, like all rules of procedure, shall have to be contrued in such a manner which promotes the cause of justice. This rule has to be read along with Rule 14 of order 16 of the Code, which also relates to the power of the Court to examine any person as a witness including a party to the suit. Keeping in view the aforesaid aspects, I am of the view that Rule 3a of Order 18 of the Code, is directory and it is open for the Court for the reasons recorded in the order to grant permission to a party who has failed to appear as his own witness before the other witnesses are examined on his behalf. 4. 3. 4. 3. This view of mine also receives support from the aforesaid two decisions. In the case of Kwality Restorant. Amrttsar v. Satinder Khanna (1) it is held at para-7 as follows: "broadly construed, therefore the intention of the legislature appears to be that the normal rule prescribed by the legislature now is that a party appearing as his own witness should do so before any one of his own witnesses. However, the rule is not inflexible and may be deviated from with the permission of the Court. No specific stage is prescribed or fixed by the statute for securing its permission. A party may perhaps as a matter of abundant caution apply at the stage of commencing his evidence and get the necessary permission and equally, if sufficient ground is made out, he may secure such permission at a later stage. " similarly in the case of Maauni Dei v. Gouranga Sahu (2), it is held that Rule 3a of Order 18 of the Code, is of directory nature and the Court has got power in proper cases to examine a party at a later stage even though he has rot obtained the previous permission of the Court as provided in the rule. ( 5 ) SRI M. S. Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel, who is also appearing for the cavoator in the connected CRP 609 of 1981 has brought to the notice of the court the provisions contained in Rule 14 of Order 16 of the Code, which are as follows:"14. Court may of its own accord summon as witnesses strangers to suit.-Subject to the provisions of this Code as to attendance and appearance and any law for the time being in force, where the Court at anv time thinks it necessary to examine any person including a party to the suit and not called as a witness bv a partv to the suit, the Court may of its own motion cause such person to be summoned as a witness to give evidence or to produce any document in his possession, on a day to be appointed, and may examine him as 8. witness or require him to produce such document. "the underlined words in the aforesaid provision came to be substituted bv amendment Act No. 104 of 1976 for the words "to examine any person other than a party to the suit. witness or require him to produce such document. "the underlined words in the aforesaid provision came to be substituted bv amendment Act No. 104 of 1976 for the words "to examine any person other than a party to the suit. " It is relevant to notice that Rule 3a of Order 18 of the Code, has been inserted along with substitution of the words "to examine any person other than a party to the suit" by the word "including a party to the suit" in R. 14 of Or. 16 of the Code by the same Amendment Act No. 104 of 1976. While interpreting Rule 3a of order 18 of the Code the words "including a party to the suit" occurring in Rule 14 of Order 16 of the Code will have to be borne in mind; inasmuch as Rule 14 of Order 16 of the code empowers the court on its own motion to summon any person who is not called as a witness by a party to the suit and also summon a party to the suit, if it is of the opinion that it is necessary to examine such person including a party to the suit either as a witness to give evidence or to produce any document in his possession. If rule 3a of Order 18 of the Code is interpreted to mean that a party is not entitled to appear as his own witness at a later stage because he has not himself appeared as his own witness before examining the other witness on his behalf it would result in not only denying or depriving the Court of its undoubted power to summon any person including a party to the suit either as a witness to give evidence or to produce any document in his possession. Such an interpretation would also deprive the party of his right to appear as his own witness. Several circumstances may crop up during the course of trial and it is possible that under justifiable circumstances, as, a party might not have been able to appear as his own witness before examining the other witnesses on his behalf. Such an interpretation would also deprive the party of his right to appear as his own witness. Several circumstances may crop up during the course of trial and it is possible that under justifiable circumstances, as, a party might not have been able to appear as his own witness before examining the other witnesses on his behalf. Therefore, to deny such a partv a right to give evidence on his own behalf would result in denying the required opportunity to him to prove his case, which in certain cases would occasion a failure of justice or might cause irreparable injury. Consequently, the object of the rule of procedure to secure proper administration of justice would be defeated. Therefore, it is consistent with principles of fair play, equity and justice to hold that the Court has got power to permit a party to appear as his own witness at a later stage. The sitage at which such permission has to be sought has already been indicated in the earlier paragraph. ( 6 ) THE contention of the petitioner that the application filed by the first defendant is not maintainable as it is for the Court to permit or not to permit a party to appear as his own witness at a later stage deserves to be accepted. When a party who has failed to appear as his own witness before any other witness is examined on his behalf is required to secure permission of the court to appear as his own witness at a later stage, the question of preventing such a party from entering the witness box to give evidence on his behalf, does not arise. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons staged above, this civil revision petition is allowed. The order dated 16th June 1981 passed by the learned Prl. Civil Judge, Bangalore district, in O. S. No. 124 of 1978 allowing I. . A. No. 7 is set aside and the application-I. A. 7 is rejected. It is open for the plaintiff-petitioner to make an appropriate application for seeking permission of the Court to appear as his own witness. In that event, the Court shall consider the application on merits and in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made in this order. --- *** --- .