The contention in this revision is that the court below committed a manifest illegality and erred in the exercise of its jurisdiction in allowing the plaintiff to be examined after he had examined a witness of his. It was further contended that the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 3-A, C. P. C. were mandatory. It was urged that in view of the above the plaintiff had to be examined first and before any other witness of his was examined. It was further urged that where the plaintiff proposes to examine himself later, he has to make an application to the court before the examination of any witness of his. This had not been done in this case. The application for permission to examine the plaintiff was made later. It was urged that the court had no jurisdiction to allow the prayer made by the plaintiff. I am unable to accept the above contentions. The provision of Order XVIII, Rule 3-A are directory. The Rule does not contain any penal provision to make it mandatory. Since the provision is directory, it is open to the trial Court to grant or not grant an opportunity to a party to examine himself later. The contention that the court has no jurisdiction to; order the examinatio