S.K. Verma, J. - (1.) THIS is a Defendants' application in revision against the order of the learned First Additional Civil Judge of Dehradun, rejecting in application (paper No. 124/C) praying that the Defendant C.L. Dhawan be examined as a witness after his other witnesses have been examined. This prayer was made because owing to a mistake made by the office of the learned Civil Judge, the witnesses of the Defendants could not be served and they, therefore, did not appear on the date fixed and the learned Civil Judge had to issue non -bailable warrants against them. C.L. Dhawan, Defendant No. 1, naturally felt an apprehension that the witnesses might turn hostile. It is for this reason that he prayed that he be examined last. The prayer was a reasonable one and I do not see why the learned Civil Judge insisted that C.L. Dhawan be examined first. I find nothing in Order XVIII which might warrant the proposition that a party must be the first witness on his behalf. It is for the party to produce such witnesses as he likes and also to choose the order in which such witnesses should be examined. In my opinion, the learned Civil Judge has acted with material irregularity in insisting upon C.L. Dhawan being examined as a witness before his ether witnesses.
(2.) I , therefore, allow this application in revision and set aside the order of the learned Civil Judge, dated 18 -8 -1969 and allow the Applicant's application (paper No. 124/C). Parties will bear their own costs. The stay order is vacated. The record, if it has been received, will be sent back forthwith.;