The plaintiff, who is the revision petitioner herein, has filled a suit for specific performance against the respondent-defendant in respect of immovable properties. The suit was listed for trial and on 17th July, 1985, the plaintiff examined a witness as P.W.1 and the trial continued. The plaintiff did not examine himself as a witness on the date of the hearing. After the evidence of P.W.1 was over, he filed an application on 31st July, 1985 in I.A.No.1667 of 1985 requesting the Court to grant him permission to examine himself as P.W.2. In the affidavit, the plaintiff has stated that on the date of trial, i.e. on 17th July, 1985 one of the attestors to the agreement of sale was not available and that he himself was not well. He further stated that since the Court was not inclined to grant adjournment, he had to examine P.W.2 in the first instance. Learned District Munsif after hearing both parties, passed an order that as per the provisions of O.18, R.3-A the plaintiff had to examine himself as a first witness and, therefore, there is no provision in law to examine the plaintiff as a subsequent witness. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the plaintiff has come