JUDGMENT Bakhshish Kaur, J. - Negligence on the part of the plaintiff is manifestly clear from the facts of the case. It is equally important to note that the trial Court has also not cared to look into the matter whether the plaintiffs need to be examined first of all before examining the other witnesses or not. 2. The trial court has not followed the procedure envisaged under Order 18 Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that 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, permits him to appear as his own witness at a later stage. 3. By examining a party first, lot of evidence is cut short. Similar view was taken in Kishore Chand v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 2001(2) RLR 200. Though the provision under Order 18 Rule 3-A of the Code is not mandatory but it is directory and effort should be made to follow the procedure laid thereunder. 4. The plaintiffs remained negligent by not entering into the witness box and when the case was ripe for disposal, application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code had been moved by them. They had closed their evidence on 1st January, 1998. Thereafter the case was postponed for recording the evidence of the defendants. The evidence of the defendants was closed on 15th December, 1999. 5. Since the trial Court has permitted the plaintiff-respondents to appear in the witness box as their own witness subject to payment of costs, no prejudice will be caused to the defendant-petitioners. It is, however, ordered that they will be at liberty to rebut the evidence of the plaintiffs, which will be appearing as their own witnesses. 6. For the foregoing reasons, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order. 7. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.