JUDGMENT By this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the revisional order dated 26.10.91 passed by the 7th Addl. Distt. Judge, Indore, in civil revision No. 11/91. In a suit for ejectment the plaintiff-respondent moved an application under Or. 18, R. 3(a) of C.P.C. objecting to the defendant's examination as a witness, at a later stage after defendant's witnesses were examined. The trial Court. disallowed the application. On revision the revisional Court reversed the order of the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that notwithstanding the use of word' shall' in rule 3(a), C.P.C. the said rule is directory. Shri Verma learned, counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the Art. 227 of the Constitution should not be invoked in such a case. The trial Court in its discretion had permitted the defendant's examination, as is evident from its order dated 16.2.91 filed as Ann. E to the petition. The exercise of this discretion by the trial Court, cannot be said to be unjust or unreasonable. In any case there was no jurisdictional error so as to cloak the revisional Court to interfere with the trial Court's order. A mere reading of the rule would indicate that an option is given to the trial Court to permit later examination of the party and even such permission to examine himself after his witnesses being examined, may be obtained at a later stage, of course such permission must be granted for reasons to be recorded by the trial Court, and the trial Court has assigned reasons. In the circumstances, interference by the revisional Court with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court was wholly unjustified. The revisional Court has overlooked an essential requirement of Sec. 115, C.P.C. as contained in clause (b) to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Sec. 115, C.P.C. It cannot be by any stretch be said that if the order as passed by the trial Court was allowed to stand, it would have occasioned to failure of justice. On the other hand, by reversing the order an irreparable injury to the party who is deprived of examining himself is likely to be caused. In this view of the matter the revisional order is liable to set aside and is accordingly set aside, and the trial Court's order is restored. There shall be no order as to costs. On the other hand, by reversing the order an irreparable injury to the party who is deprived of examining himself is likely to be caused. In this view of the matter the revisional order is liable to set aside and is accordingly set aside, and the trial Court's order is restored. There shall be no order as to costs. Security costs, if deposited be refunded to the petitioner, after verification.