DARSHAN SINGH, J. - (1.) The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 04.02.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Gurgaon, whereby the application of the respondents-defendants directing the petitioners-plaintiffs to first examine their authorised representative has been allowed.
(2.) I have heard Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents and have carefully gone through the paper book.
(3.) Initiating the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly mentioned that the provisions of Order 18, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC) are mandatory in nature. He contended that it has been consistently laid down that the said provisions are directory in nature. He further contended that there is no legal bar for the plaintiff or his representative to appear in the witness box after the examination of other witnesses. He relied upon cases Lalit @ Lalit Kumar and another v. Kailash and others 2016 SCC Online P&H 7718 and Jagdish Mehtani v. Smt. Usha Rani 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 3716.;