1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 20.4.2007 in E.A.No.653 of 2006 in E.P.No.326 of 2005 in O.S.No.494 of 2002, on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

2. The revision petitioner is the Judgment-debtor No.1, who suffered a decree for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.494 of 2002 in respect of suit schedule property. The 1st respondent/decree-holder filed E.P.No.326 of 2005 under Order 21, Rule 32 of Code of Civil Procedure, to commit the judgment-debtor to civil prison for a period of one month, alleging that the judgment-debtor prevented him from cultivating the land in violation of the decree granted in O.S.No.494 of 2002.

3. The revision petitioner/judgment-debtor filed a counter denying the alleged interference with the possession of the decree-holder and stating that, as a matter of fact, there was no land in existence as described in the suit schedule. It was also alleged that under the guise of the decree granted in O.S.No.494 of 2002, the decree-holder himself was trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of land belonging to him covered by Ex.B9.

4. While E.P.No.326 of 2005 was coming up for enquiry, the decree- holder/respondent herein filed E.A.No.653 of 2006 under Order 16, Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to summon the judgment-debtor No.1 for subjecting himself to cross-examination, pleading that the judgment-debtor No.1 having filed a counter opposing the Execution proceedings, intentionally did not appear before the Court to give evidence to avoid cross-examination. The judgment-debtor No.1 filed his counter opposing the said Application. The Court below after hearing both the parties, by order dated 20.4.2007, allowed E.A.No.653 of 2006. Hence, this Revision Petition by the judgment-debtor No.1.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since there was no evidence in chief on behalf of the judgment-debtor No.1, he cannot be compelled to subject himself to cross-examination. It is further contended that the impugned order directing the judgment-debtor to face cross-examination was beyond the scope of Order 16, Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure, since the said provision does not entitle a party to the proceedings to make an application to summon a person to give evidence.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order is in accordance with the settled principles of law and that the Court below rightly summoned the Judgment-debtor No.1 to subject him to cross-examination, since it is essential to elicit the true facts of the case. Chapter-X of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the examination of witnesses. Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which specified the order of examination of witnesses runs as under: "138. Order of examinations.-Witnesses shall be first examined-in chief then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined.

8. The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief.

9. Direction of re-examination.-The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter."

10. As could be seen, Section 138 laid down the order in which the proceedings are to be conducted while examining the witnesses. A plain reading of Section 138 shows that a witness shall be first examined in chief and then can be cross- examined if the opposite party so desires. Thus, it is clear that the other party has a right to cross-examine only when a witness,