Judgment :- Patnaik. Plaintiffs in O.S.454/94 on the file of the Munsiff s Court, Karunagappally, being aggrieved by the order in I. A. 2752/1995 arising out of the said suit have preferred this revision petition. 2. Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession in respect of the suit property on the basis of a will executed by one Krishnan Pillai on 23.3.1989. Krishna Pillai died on 3.4.1994. Defendants 1 and 2 are the brothers of Krishna Pillai. They contested the claim of the plaintiff s and contended that the will was not duly executed. The case was posted for hearing on 17.10.1995. On that day, the first plaintiff was examined and cross examined. Exts. Al to A6 were marked. It was adjourned to 19.10.1995. On that day, counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners could not attend the court for some personal reasons and he was also not available at the station. Hence the plaintiffs prayed for an adjournment. That petition was rejected. In the absence of their counsel, no evidence could be adduced by them. Hence the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. On that day, DW 1 was examined in chief. It was adjourned' to 20.10.1995 for further hearing. A petition was filed by the plaintiffs on 20.10.1995 to recall the order closing the plaintiffs' evidence and allow the plaintiffs to examine some more witnesses and to prove certain material documents in the case. By the impugned order, the learned Munsiff rejected that petition. 3. Notice was issued to the respondents in this case. Due service was effected on them. But, they did not appear in this proceeding. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners would suffer substantial injury and irreparable loss if they are not permitted to prove the will under which'they claim their title to the suit property. In order to prove the will at least one attesting witness has to be examined. If such an opportunity is denied, the plan of the plaintiffs would be considered as not proved. He therefore, has contended that the court below may be directed to allow the petition for examination of some more witnesses under 0.18 R.2 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for short C. P. C. 5. If such an opportunity is denied, the plan of the plaintiffs would be considered as not proved. He therefore, has contended that the court below may be directed to allow the petition for examination of some more witnesses under 0.18 R.2 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for short C. P. C. 5. The question that arises for consideration is whether in an appropriate case the court has the discretion to allow the parties to examine some more witnesses or prove some more documents after the evidence of either party is closed. 6. Order 18 R.2 C.P. C. reads as follows: "2. Statement and production of evidence - (1) On tile day fixed for the hearing of the -suit or on any other day to which the hearing is adjourned, the party having the right to begin shall state his case and produce his evidence in support of the issues which he is bound to prove. (2) The other party shall then state his case and produce his evidence (if any) and may then address the court generally on live whole case. (3) The party beginning may then reply generally on the whole case. (4) Notwithstanding any tiling contained in this rule, the Court may, for reasons to be recorded, direct or permit any party to examine any witness at any stage." 7. R.C. Patnaik, J. (as he then was) observed in Mani Dhal v. Padma Charan Dhal and others (AIR 1984 Orissa 169) as follows: "Sub-rule (4) of Rule 2 of 0.18 was added by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976. Even before the amendment, many of the High Courts had amended the rule empowering the court to direct any party to examine any witness at any stage for reasons to be recorded in writing. The amendment is in furtherance of the cause of justice and for preventing miscarriage of justice in certain cases. The provision confers a discretional jurisdiction on the court. Jurisdiction is invoked at a stage where a party cannot adduce evidence as of right having regard to sequence of recording of evidence. Being a discretionary jurisdiction, it has to be exercised cautiously and with circumspection. Exceptional must be circumstances and few the occasions. The exercise of the power has to be judicious and not mechanical." 8. Jurisdiction is invoked at a stage where a party cannot adduce evidence as of right having regard to sequence of recording of evidence. Being a discretionary jurisdiction, it has to be exercised cautiously and with circumspection. Exceptional must be circumstances and few the occasions. The exercise of the power has to be judicious and not mechanical." 8. The court, therefore, has the power and jurisdiction under R.2(4) of 0.18 C. P. C. to direct or permit any party to examine any witness at any stage. The expression "at any stage" means a stage prior to the delivery of judgment, whereafter the court loses seisin over the suit. Thus the court may, for reasons to be recorded, allow a party to examine a witness at any stage in an appropriate case to prove any relevant fact or document prior to the pronouncement of judgment. This view finds support in the decisions of the Patna High Court in Brahmdeo Prasad v. Ramasakal (AIR 1985 Patna 57), of Delhi High Court in M/s. a:. Bahadur Singh & Son v. Delhi Municipality (AIR 1982 Delhi 26) and of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shivsahay v. Nandlal (AIR 1989 M. P. 40). 9. In the instant case, it is found that the petitioners were not in a position to proceed with the further hearing because of the absence of their counsel. It was not possible for them to adduce evidence in a proper way without the assistance of a counsel in a suit where complicated questions of fact and law are involved. It was on account of the counsel's unavoidable absence that they prayed for an adjournment. That was rejected for no fault of theirs. In order to establish the genuineness of the will on the basis of which the plaintiffs claim their title, examination of one of the attesting witnesses is essential according to law. The document is pivot in deciding the case. Since confirmation of possession is also prayed for, plaintiffs are required to prove the same by examining witnesses. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that in exercise of the discretionary power vested in the court under R.2(4) of 0.18 C. P. C. The plaintiffs should be permitted to examine a few more witnesses. But however, the defendants should get an opportunity to rebut the evidence of the plaintiffs. 10. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that in exercise of the discretionary power vested in the court under R.2(4) of 0.18 C. P. C. The plaintiffs should be permitted to examine a few more witnesses. But however, the defendants should get an opportunity to rebut the evidence of the plaintiffs. 10. For the reasons stated above, the revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The learned Munsiff is directed to permit the plaintiffs to examine a few more witnesses and also to produce prove relevant documents on their behalf after giving sufficient notice to both the parties to appear on a date to be fixed by him. The defendants shall be given a further opportunity to rebut the plaintiffs' evidence.