JUDGMENT Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.03.2005 passed by learned Subordinate Judge II, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 145 of 1999, whereby the Court below has rejected the. plaintiff- petitioners application dated 09.02.2005 filed under Order XVIII Rule 3A read with Order XXVI Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for issuance of commission for examination of the plaintiff as a witness in the suit. 2. The said petition was filed on the ground that the petitioner has been suffering from throat cancer and her eyesight has been badly affected. Her vision of left eye has also completely gone and she has been advised to keep distance of atleast 7 feet from others in order to avoid infection. Plaintiff was given radio active iodine and no body is allowed to go near her unless he wears apron to protect against radiation emanating from her body. It has been stated that the plaintiff wishes to make certain things clear by her examination which could not be brought on record by her husband who is her constituted attorney, as those facts are only in the knowledge of the plaintiff. 3. A rejoinder was filed on behalf of the defend ant stating, interalia, that the parties have already closed their evidences and if her further examination is allowed it would amount reopening of the case. It Has been stated that according to the provision of law a party has to appear as a witness before any other witness is examined on his/her behalf and since she failed to appear before examination of the other witnesses, she cannot be permitted to appear as witness at this stage. 4. Learned Court below held that the provision of Order XVIII Rule 17A is mandatory and in support of the same it has referred to and relied upon a decision in Shri Ram Maharaj v. Raj Kishore Bhagat reported in 1978 BLJR 600 and on that ground, rejected the petitioners application and also on the ground that alter the Amendment Act, 1999, omitting rule 17A of Order XVIII, there is no other provision under which the said order can be passed. 5. Notice was issued to the respondent, but inspite of service of notice no body appeared. 6. Mr. 5. Notice was issued to the respondent, but inspite of service of notice no body appeared. 6. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of the Court below is wholly erroneous and is based on an overruled decision and also on unsound reason. Learned Counsel submitted that the decision, which was relied upon by the Court below, i.e., Shri Ram Maharaj (supra) has been overruled by a Division Bench in Rameshwar Sharma v. Sarju Prasad reported in 1979 BBCJ 637. Learned Counsel further submitted that notwithstanding the omission of Rule 17A of Order XVIII the Court has power to pass appropriate orders in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. Learned Counsel placed his reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. v. Union of India. 7. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner and perusing the records, I find that the Court below has rejected the petitioners petition without giving due consideration on the grounds mentioned in the petition. The Court below relied upon a decision which has been overruled and also erroneously held that the Court has no power and that there is no other provision under which such prayer of the plaintiff can be allowed. Learned Court below failed to take into consideration the provision of Order XVIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which the Court can permit the party to appear as his/her own witness at a later stage for reasons to be recorded for by the Court. That apart, the Court has got inherent power to make such order which may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The Court below has thus taken a view which is contrary to the provision of law and is unsustainable. The impugned order dated 21.03.2003 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Court below to consider and pass an order afresh in accordance with law. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.