JUDGMENT 1. - This civil revision has been preferred against the order dated 17.7.2000 in suit No. 96/95 whereby the application of the petitioner plaintiff filed under Order 18 Rule 16 CPC has been dismissed. 2. A suit for permanent injunction against the defendants and other persons from entering into Dargah was filed along with other reliefs. It is stated that the cross-examination of P.W. 1, the plaintiff, is still continuing. The petitioner had moved an application under Order 18 Rule 16 CPC for immediate examination of 17 witnesses cited by him on the ground of their being of advance age as they were required to prove certain documents in regard to registration and to pray that those witnesses be examined before the examination of the plaintiff. Another reason for moving such an application was given that some of the witnesses are likely to go abroad and may not come back. The trial court dismissed the application. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner in view of the circumstances mentioned therein the application, the trial court ought to have allowed the witnesses to be examined before examination/cross-examination of the plaintiff who is already being examined. The trial court in its order had mentioned that the petitioner-plaintiff was being given number of opportunities for leading evidence, but he has failed to do so. As many as opportunities were given from January 1998 to May 1998. The trial court had observed that there was hardly any necessity to first examine the witnesses before the plaintiff himself when he is already in the witness box. The petitioner is free to bring any number of witnesses on the adjourned dates. 4. I fully agree with the order passed by the trial court. The petitioner is being examined as witness and after he finishes his evidence, he may examine any of the witness cited by him on the next date of hearing if the witnesses are present in the court. 5. There is no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******