JUDGMENT Bakhshish Kaur, J. (Oral) - The challenge in this revision petition is to the impugned order whereby the evidence of the petitioner was closed by order. Considering the background that this case has got a chequed history, this revision petition can be disposed of without issuing notice of motion to the other side. 2. It is a fact that a civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff, now petitioner, in the year 1993. It was decreed ex parte on 21.11.1994. Thereafter, the decree was set aside on the appearance of the defendants. 3. It is also a fact that the plaintiff was afforded sufficient opportunities to conclude his evidence, as observed by the trial Court, but considering the fact that the suit is an old one and he had failed to conclude his evidence, the evidence was closed vide impugned order. 4. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only the plaintiff is required to be examined and no other witness will be examined by him, the equity of justice, therefore, demands that the plaintiff, who had already undergone the turmoil of prolonged proceedings in the suit for a sufficient long time, should be given an opportunity to appear as his own witness. 5. This entire exercise could be avoided had the Court followed the procedure laid down in Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is the plaintiff who has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by him. On the day fixed for hearing of the suit, or 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 in which burden of proof lies on him. The Court must follow the procedure laid down in Order 18 Rule 3-A which reads as under :- "Order 18 Rule 3-A. 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 behalf has been examined, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, permits him to appear as his own witness at a later stage." 6. Though the provisions, as above, are not mandatory but being directory require to be followed because by doing so lot of evidence is cut short. Though the provisions, as above, are not mandatory but being directory require to be followed because by doing so lot of evidence is cut short. This Court has already observed on the aforesaid lines while deciding C.R. No. 58 of 2001, decided on 8.1.2001, reported as Kishore Chand v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, 2001(2) Indian Civil Cases 71. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The trial Court is directed to permit the plaintiff- petitioner to appear as his own witness preferably on the next date fixed before it for defendants evidence, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2000/-. Copy of this order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. Revision allowed.