1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3671 OF 2008. Jyotibai W/o Ramesh Mirkar and others ... Petitioners. Versus Ganesh S/o Pandurang Palodkar and others ... Respondents. ... Mr. Bhandari, advocate holding for Mr. S.V.Gangapurwala, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.L.D.Vakil, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6. Respondnet Nos.7 to 9 served. ... CORAM :V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date :10.06.2009 PER COURT 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 11.2.2008, rendered by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Aurangabad, on an 2 application (Exh.101) in Spl.Civil Suit No. 234/2006. 2. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge allowed filing of the affidavits of the original plaintiff Nos.5 and 6 after examination of plaintiff No.2 as P.W.1 and one more witness, namely, P.W.2 Palodkar. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that without leave of the Court such witnesses could not be examined in view of Order XVIII Rule 3-A of the C.P.C. 4. Having considered the legal position, it is amply clear that Rule 3-A does contemplate examination of a party before any witness is examined in support of the case of such a party. Though, the word used in Rule 3-A is "shall", yet, no penal provision is made for violation of the Rule. Ordinarily, the Court shall not permit the examination of a party after the independent witnesses have been examined. The purpose is to avoid filling of lacuna created due to the 3 examination of the independent witnesses and their cross-examination. In the present case, there is no material on record to show that there was lacuna created due to such anachronism in the examination of the witnesses. Moreover, the two witnesses sought to be examined are the parties themselves. In the absence of any specific prejudice caused to the petitioners, the impugned order can not be termed as perverse. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp367108