JUDGEMENT Surinder Singh, Judge (oral): The respondent Laxman Dass had filed Civil Suit No.91 of 2001, in the learned trial Court. He adduced his evidence and the opportunity was accorded to the defendants to lead their evidence. Without examining the defendants, other witnesses were examined. When the witnesses of the defendants were not present, evidence of the defendants was closed. Thereafter, an application under Section 151 C.P.C. to examine the defendants was moved, which was also declined. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.7.201 1 to this effect passed by the learned trial Court the present petition has been preferred. 2.Briefly stated the facts are that the suit was filed by the respondent Laxman Dass seeking declaration and injunction as a consequential relief qua the suit land, which was resisted and contested by the petitioners herein. 3.On 23.12.2002, learned trial Court framed the issues on the pleadings of the parties and adjourned the case for the evidence of plaintiff. The process went on, for examining the witnesses of the plaintiff on various dates; ultimately an application Under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. was moved by the plaintiff to place on record the original agreement, which was allowed vide order dated 3.10.2007 subject to the cost of ‘.200/-. Thereafter, some more witnesses were examined by the plaintiff, finally the evidence was closed on 25.2.2010. 4.On 5.7.2010, none of the defendants examined themselves, but examined five other witnesses and the case was adjourned on various dates for examination of remaining DWs. The learned trial Court noticed that one application Under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 C.P.C., filed earlier, remained un­disposed which was for seeking amendment with respect to the issues and finally decided it on 31.5.2011. Thereafter the case was again listed on 20.6.20 1 1 for remaining DWs, but the DWs were not present despite according last opportunity, therefore, the evidence was closed by the order of the Court and the case was adjourned for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff. Thereafter the case was again listed on 20.6.20 1 1 for remaining DWs, but the DWs were not present despite according last opportunity, therefore, the evidence was closed by the order of the Court and the case was adjourned for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff. 5.Certified copies of the documents placed on record reveal that an application under Section 151 C.P.C. was also moved by the defendants on 20.6.20 1 1 itself, seeking permission to examine the defendant, which was later dismissed on 20.7.2011 on the ground that the defendants were afforded various opportunities to examine their witnesses and cannot take recluse of the application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC filed by the defendants themselves on the premise that due to sheer negligence, defendants remained under the bonafide mistake that their witnesses are yet to be examined, however, their other witnesses stood already examined prior to the presentation of the said application. 6.Shri Piyush Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that only defendant No.3 is required to be examined in this case, for which he made an application under Section 151 CPC, stating the facts therein. He also ventilated that when the plaintiff or his counsel did not object to examination of the defendants before the defendant(s) before examining their witnesses, he is estopped to take objection by his own act and conduct. 7.Contra, Shri G.R. Palsara, learned counsel for respondent No.1, countered the aforesaid arguments that it was the duty of the defendants to examine themselves, then to examine/ produce their witnesses to examine them. Since the defendants stayed off in putting in appearance themselves and examined the other witnesses, they cannot be allowed to be examined now. 8.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant provisions of law in this behalf. 9.Order XVIII Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:- “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.” 10. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule reveals that it is directory in nature and only the mandatory provision it incorporates in it to the extent of obtaining permission of the Court. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule reveals that it is directory in nature and only the mandatory provision it incorporates in it to the extent of obtaining permission of the Court. The normal rule laid down in the said rule is that the party wanting to examine himself should examine first before any witness is examined. But however, this rule can be deviated only with the permission of the Court. Such permission of the Court, it is desirable, should be obtained from before any witness examined, but it is held to be not mandatory, it can even be obtained at a later stage. I am persuaded by the decision rendered in Sanjay Narayanrao Barde and another vs. Sau.Vimal Keshaorao Balram and others [AIR 2000 Bombay 384] to come to this conclusion. 11. In fact when the other witnesses of the defendants except the defendant(s) were examined, plaintiff did not raise any objection as to the sequence of examining the witnesses, therefore, plaintiff is now estopped to take such a plea by his own act and conduct. [ See Gurmail Chand vs. Ashok Verma [ AIR 2004 Punjab & Haryana 306]. 12. The Rule quoted above itself provides exception, its breach does not visit consequences. 13. In the instant case, suit is not yet concluded. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 pointed out that rebuttal evidence was not led and the case is now ripe for arguments, which is not heard because of stay. In my opinion, in case opportunity is granted to the defendants to examine any of the defendants as prayed for, the plaintiff shall have a right to rebut the evidence qua the issue, the onus of which is on the defendants and can also put in case to him in cross- examination. Therefore, in my considered opinion, no prejudice is going to be caused to the plaintiff in any way. As such, impugned order dated 20.7.2011 is hereby set-aside and the application moved by the defendants under Section 151 C.P.C. to examine defendants, particularly defendant No.3, as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioners stands allowed, subject to the cost quantified at ‘.500/-, to be tendered by the petitioner to respondent Laxman Dass or his counsel or else deposit it in the learned trial Court on the first date fixed hereinafter. 14. 14. The parties are hereby directed to be present before the learned trial Court on 30.3.2012 at 10.00 A.M. Thereafter, the learned trial Court shall fix a date for the statement of defendant No.3 as per convenience of the parties. 15. In view of above, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.