Rule 3a of Order 18 CPC is directory, not mandatory. Plaintiff's burden of proof for reasonable requirement cannot be shifted to other witnesses.

( 1 ) -THE present revision is directed at the instance of the defendant/petitioner, against the impugned order No. 121 dated 19. 2. 91 passed by the Additional Munsif, Tamluk in T. S. No. 61 of 1990 allowing the plaintiff to depose after the evidence of PWS, 1, 2 and 3, on commission.

( 2 ) THE question mooted in this case for decision is whether the plaintiff in the order of examination of witnesses can be examined after examination of other witnesses for the plaintiff.

( 3 ) IN the plaintiff's suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit promises on the ground of default and reasonable requirement for establishing a cycle-shop for the plaintiff's son, three witnesses of the plaintiff were examined on 10-12-90, 12-12-90. Of the three PWS, PW-1 is the son of the plaintiff and a power of attorney holder of the plaintiff and he deposed on, behalf of the plaintiff on the strength of that power of attorney. In his examination-in-chief, he stated on oath that the plaintiff would not depose in the case.

( 4 ) FROM the evidence of the plaintiff it has been extracted that the defendant's wife has a shop of electronic goods under the name style of "sujata Electronics. "

( 5 ) ON 19. 12. 90, after the examination of the two witnesses of the plaintiff, namely, Manick Lal Maity, PW-2 and Deba Brata Das, PW-3, an affirmed application was made on behalf of the plaintiff seeking permission from the Court to allow the plaintiff to be examined on commission on the ground that as the case is on the ground of reasonable requirement the burden of proof to prove the same is on the plaintiff which cannot be shifted to any other witness for the plaintiff and that the plaintiff is an old lady and is suffering from various types of ailments.

( 6 ) THE defendant/petitioner filed a verified objection against the said application and ultimately, after hearing both the parties, the impugned order has been passed by the learned trial Court allowing the said petition.

( 7 ) CONTENTION was raised by the petitioner's learned Advocate, Mr. Tabrak Ali, that the said order was passed by the teamed Trial Court in violation of the provision of Rule 3a of order 18 of the CPC, as the provision is a mandatory one. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court, Usha Ghosh v. Rabindra Nath Das, 1991 (1) CLJ 434.

( 8 ) ON behalf of the plaintiff/opposite party, the learned Advocate, Mr. Subhra Kamal Mukherjee, contended that the provision, as contained in Rule 3a of Order 18 of the CPC is not mandatory but directory. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on a Single Bench decision of this Court. Bhola Nath Mondal v. Kalipada Monday AIR 1981 Calcutta 295.

( 9 ) RULE 3a of Order 18 of the CPC reads as follows :"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 ) SO the question here is whether the word "shall" makes the provision mandatory or directory.

( 11 ) A Single Bench of the Calcutta High Court held, inter alia, in the case of Bholanath Mondal (supra) that the provision is directory and not mandatory. That is the view expressed by the Orissa High Court in the case of Maguni Dei v. Gauranga Sahu, AIR 1978 Orissa 228 and also by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Kwality Restaurant, Amritsar v. Satindra Khanna, AIR 1979 Punjab and Haryana High Court 72.

( 12 ) PARTY may be examined even after examination of other witnesses in the interest of justice and for a just decision. This is the view that has been expressed by the Orissa High Court in the case of Parmananda v. Labanya Bewa, AIR 1979 Orissa 132.

( 13 ) SO the contention of Mr. Ali that the provision contained in Rule 3a of Order 18 of the CPC is mandatory is without any substance and the decision that has been rel