JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code) is directed against the order dated 25.11.1999 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Nalagarh whereby the application moved by the petitioner-defendant (hereafter referred to as the defendant) under Order 18 Rule 3-A of the Code in Civil Suit No. 248/1 of 1996 for seeking permission to appear as his own witness has been dismissed. 2. The facts material for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereafter referred to as the plaintiff) has instituted Civil Suit No. 248/1 of 1996 against the defendant for declaration of title and grant of permanent injunction. After the conclusion of the evidence of the plaintiff in the said suit, the case was posted for evidence of the defendant on various dates and statement of one DW was recorded on 11.5.1999 and statements of two more DWs were recorded on 25.10.1999, when an application was moved on behalf of the defendant for permission to examine him as his own witness. It was averred in the application that though the other witnesses of the defendant had been examined but the defendant has not been examined till then "due to in advertance or with the consent of the counsel for the plaintiff and that the examination of the defendant was necessary for just decision of the case. The application was contested by the plaintiff who, in her reply, claimed that the plaintiff or her counsel never accorded their consent to the defendant to examine himself after examination of his other witnesses nor such permission was sought from the Court and that there was no lawful reason to examine the defendant at that belated stage and he could not be allowed to fill up the lacunae in the evidence. The learned trial Judge, after hearing the counsel for the parties, dismissed the application by the impugned order. Hence the present petition. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. 4. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, following questions arise for determination in this revision petition: (i) Whether the provisions of the enabling Rule 3-A of Order 18 of the Code are mandatory or directory in nature? 4. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, following questions arise for determination in this revision petition: (i) Whether the provisions of the enabling Rule 3-A of Order 18 of the Code are mandatory or directory in nature? (ii) At what stage an application under Rule 3-A of Order 18 of the Code can be made by a party? (iii) Whether the Court below while passing the impugned order has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity and if the order is allowed to stand it will occasion failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the defendant? Question No. (i) 5. Learned Counsel for the defendant has contended that the provisions of Order 18 Rule 3-A of the Code are not mandatory but are directory. Therefore, being a procedural law, it has to be liberally construed and applied keeping in view the interest of justice. To support his contention, the learned Counsel has relied on Sanjay Narayanrao Barde and another v. Sau, Vimal Keshaorao Bairam and others, AIR 2000 Bombay 384 SB. 6. Be it stated that the question whether the provisions of Rule 3-A of Order 18 of the Code are mandatory or not, has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. UmaDeviv. Smt. Raj Kumari, ILR 1981 HP 16, and it has been held as under: "No doubt this rule is mandatory. It enjoins upon a party, who wishes to appear as witness, to examine himself first before examining any other witness on his behalf. However, an exception has been made. The Court has been given the discretion to allow a party to examine himself later on after examining one or more witnesses on his behalf. But we do not find anything in this rule which compels a party to ask for the requisite permission from the court before he examines his first witness. We cannot overlook the fact that the rule is a procedural one. It is meant to curb a particular evil for the enhancement of justice. It has to be interpreted in such a manner that while the evil is curbed, it does not lead to any injustice." 7. We cannot overlook the fact that the rule is a procedural one. It is meant to curb a particular evil for the enhancement of justice. It has to be interpreted in such a manner that while the evil is curbed, it does not lead to any injustice." 7. In view of the above decision of the Division Bench of this Court, it is held that the provisions of Rule 3-A of Order 18 of the Code are mandatory. Question No. (ii) 8. Rule 3-A of Order 18 of the Code reads as follows : "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 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." As is apparent, the aforesaid rule is silent as to the stage at which the permission has to be obtained. Thus, regarding stage of making of the application for grant of permission, the rule appears to be flexible. In the ordinary course, a party which desires to examine himself after his witnesses, must obtain the permission to do so, when he commences leading of his evidence. However, the rule does not debar making of such application even at a later stage and in my view such party can seek permission even after its witnesses are examined and it is within the discretion of the Court to grant or not to grant such permission. However, if the Court is satisfied that the party was unable to appear and give evidence for any reason beyond its control, the permission can be accorded even at a later stage. Question No. (iii) 9. There is no dispute that the defendant did not make any application for grant of permission to examine him after recording the statement of his witnesses before commencing the leading of his evidence. Such a prayer was, however, made at a stage when all the DWs had been examined. Though the application at that stage could be moved but on sufficient grounds which could satisfy the court to decide in his favour. Such a prayer was, however, made at a stage when all the DWs had been examined. Though the application at that stage could be moved but on sufficient grounds which could satisfy the court to decide in his favour. The reason given in the application by the defendant for not appearing as his witness before the commencement of the recording of the statements of the other DWs are: (i) due to inadvertance; or (ii) with the consent of the counsel for the plaintiff. It simply means that this is not the case of the defendants that initially he did not intend to appear as his own witness. The failure is firstly attributed to inadvertance which is a form of negligence and will not constitute a sufficient cause to accord permission to him to appear as his witness after his other witnesses had already been examined. The second ground that the defendant acted in the manner as he did with the consent of the counsel for the plaintiff. It is denied for the plaintiff that any such consent was given either by the plaintiff herself or by her counsel. In any case, any such consent even if given, is of no help to the defendant because the consent of the parties cannot over-ride the provisions of Rule 3-A supra. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court, by dismissing the application of the defendant, has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity and if the impugned order is allowed to stand, it would occasion failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the defendant. 10. In view of the above discussion and reasons, the impugned order doe& not call for any interference by this Court. 11. As a result, the revision petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 12. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 23.4.2001. Revision dismissed. -