Judgment :- The plaintiff, who is the revision petitioner herein, has filled a suit for specific performance against the respondent-defendant in respect of immovable properties. The suit was listed for trial and on 17th July, 1985, the plaintiff examined a witness as P.W.1 and the trial continued. The plaintiff did not examine himself as a witness on the date of the hearing. After the evidence of P.W.1 was over, he filed an application on 31st July, 1985 in I.A.No.1667 of 1985 requesting the Court to grant him permission to examine himself as P.W.2. In the affidavit, the plaintiff has stated that on the date of trial, i.e. on 17th July, 1985 one of the attestors to the agreement of sale was not available and that he himself was not well. He further stated that since the Court was not inclined to grant adjournment, he had to examine P.W.2 in the first instance. Learned District Munsif after hearing both parties, passed an order that as per the provisions of O.18, R.3-A the plaintiff had to examine himself as a first witness and, therefore, there is no provision in law to examine the plaintiff as a subsequent witness. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the plaintiff has come on revision. He has also filed a civil miscellaneous petition and obtained stay of the part heard trial of the suit. 2. The question now before us is of some importance for the trial court and, therefore, it is necessary to cite the case law on the subject in some detail. 0.18, R.3-A (as added by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976) reads thus: "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, permit him to appear as his own witness at a later stage." It is clear from the above provision that the Court has got judicial discretion to permit a party to give evidence even after a witness has been examined, but then the court will have to state the reasons for permitting him to appear at a later stage. The reasons will have to be in writing. The reasons will have to be in writing. In the instant case, the trial court has not given any reasons for rejecting the application, except stating that O.18, R.3-A is a bar for examining a party as a witness subsequently. The lower Court in a short order dismissed the application holding that there is no provision in the Code under which a party, who has failed to examine himself in the first instance can appear as a witness. 1 have already extracted the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, and it is clear therefrom that the Court has got judicial discretion to allow a witness to be examined at a later stage" provided the Court permits him after giving the reasons. The trial court wrongly thought that it has no discretion in the matter. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner drew my attention to a ruling reported in Inderdeo Shah v. Sharamdeo Metha, A.I.R. 1981 Pat.260. I wherein it is stated that R.3.A of O.18 makes it clear that the rule does not lay down that if a petition is filed subsequently by the plaintiff for permission to be examined as a witness, ,the court has no power to entertain or allow such a prayer. This decision follows the Division Bench ruling of the Patna High Court reported in the case of Rames-war Sharma v. Sarju Prasad, (1979), B.B. C.J. 63 7. which has been extracted in that judgment. It is stated therein that there are no words in R. 3-A to indicate that an application for such permission had to be filed before the party examines his first witness. The Division Bench held that, in the absence of any restriction in this reard, it should be held that ordinarily an application for such permission can be made either at the initial stage or when the occassion arises. In Inderdeo v. Mehta, A.I.R. 1981 Pat-260, K.B.N. Singh, C.J., has observed that if a narrow interpretation is put on R.3-A, then this new provision will be rendered nugatory and, therefore, a harmonious construction should be taken up. 4. The next case cited on behalf of the petitioner is found in Kwality Restaurant v. Satinder Khanna, A.I.R.. In Inderdeo v. Mehta, A.I.R. 1981 Pat-260, K.B.N. Singh, C.J., has observed that if a narrow interpretation is put on R.3-A, then this new provision will be rendered nugatory and, therefore, a harmonious construction should be taken up. 4. The next case cited on behalf of the petitioner is found in Kwality Restaurant v. Satinder Khanna, A.I.R.. 1979 P & H 72, wherein it is observed that though the intention of the legislature is that a party appearing as his own witness should do so before any one of his own witnesses the rule is not inflexible and may be deviated from with the permission of the Court. The Division Bench also observed that no specific stage is prescribed or fixed by the statute for securing such 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. 5. In another case cited at the Bar on behalf of the petitioner reported in Rabindranath v. S.T.A. Tribunal, A.I.R. 19 79 Orissa 132 it has been held that a party may be examined even after examination of other witnesses in the interests of justice and for a just decision. In the just cited case, it was held that the court should have allowed an opportunity to the party to examine himself as a witness in the case cited at least after granting costs to the other side. 6. In Marappa Gounder v. Sallappa Gounder, (1985) 2 M.L.J. 35: 97 L.W. 617: A.I.R. 1985 Mad. 183, learned Judge of this High Court dealt with the scope of 0.18, R. 3-A with reference to the procedure and practice in the order of examination of witnesses. Learned Judge pointed out that any permission by the Court should be in writing and only after recording reasons for such permission. The learned Judge has also observed that before grating permission the court should hear the objections, if any, of the other side, and then alone permit any witness of the party to be examined. This case is relied on by both the petitioner as well as the respondent, in the instant case. 7. The learned Judge has also observed that before grating permission the court should hear the objections, if any, of the other side, and then alone permit any witness of the party to be examined. This case is relied on by both the petitioner as well as the respondent, in the instant case. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that in this case the plaintiff-purchaser kept himself away from the witness box and put his witness in the first instance. It is also argued plaintiff is only trying to fill up the blanks or lacuna left out in the evidence already given. Learned counsel for the respondent also read out from the evidence of P.W.1, already examined that the - plaintiff was present in court on the date of examination and therefore, he has wantonly avoided the witness box with ulterior motive. But then, the lower court has not considered the merits of this aspect and it has not decided whether this is a fit case for granting such permission or not. As already stated, the lower court wrongly thought that it had no discretion to grant any permission, misreading the provisions of O.18, R.3-A, C.P.C. 8. It is noticed that this is a suit in respect of immovable properties and the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The stakes involved in the suit appear to be substantial and, therefore, the lower court may consider the application on its merits and decide whether an opportunity should be given to the plaintiff to examine himself in a suit for the equitable remedy of specific performance. It may also be stated that the provisions of 0.18, R.3.A are directory and not mandatory and the trial court will have to exercise its discretion in the interests of justice and fair trial. Any prejudice that is caused can be compensated by costs. 9. Therefore, the proper order to be passed in this case is that the order of dismissal of the application is set aside and the application is restored to its file and the lower court will decide the application on merits, bearing in mind the case law cited and the observations made in this judgment. The civil revision petition is ordered on these terms. No costs. The lower court is directed to dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible.