1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5366 OF 2011. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 17.08.2011. 1. Heard. 2. The present petitioner is the original defendant. The Respondent has filed suit for eviction. The Respondent closed his evidence. Thereafter, the present petitioner gave an application seeking leave of the Court to examine the witnesses first i.e. prior to the defendant. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Mr. S.P.Brahme, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court should have considered the application on merits and should not have rejected it only on the ground that 2 application does not state any reason. Order XVIII Rule 3-A of the C.P.C. is directory in nature and not mandatory. In such circumstances, the Court should have considered the said application liberally. 4. I have perused the application and the impugned order. The application nowhere says or states any reason why the defendant wants to examine before him. Order XVIII Rule 3-A of the C.P.C. requires that if the party himself wishes to appear as a witness, he should examine himself first before the other witnesses. The Court has got the power to allow a party to examine the witness first before himself but that has tobe for valid reasons. The Court can not exercise that discretion as a matter of course. The same would be an exception to the Rule for which the reasons will have to be stated. The application is bereft of any such reasons or the grounds for which the defendant requires witnesses to be examined first before himself. 5. In light of that, the trial Court has not committed any error of jurisdiction while 3 rejecting the said application. In view of that the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.17.08.2011. asp/office/wp5366.11