The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.104 of 2007 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Puttur against the petitioner and respondents 2 to 7 herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The trial of the suit commenced. The evidence on behalf of the 1st respondent was concluded. The evidence on behalf of the defendants is in progress. The cross-examination of D.W.1 was also completed.

When D.W.2 was being cross-examined, a person who was sought to be examined as D.W.3 and filed affidavit in lieu of Chief-examination, remained in the Court. Taking that into account, the trial Court, through docket order, dated 14.12.2012, eschewed the evidence in chief of D.W.3 and held that he shall not be entitled to depose as a witness in that suit. The same is challenged in this revision.

Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, leaned Counsel for the petitioner.

The cross-examination of a witness has its own significance. Several important aspects will be elicited from the witnesses and the strength or weakness of the suit would depend upon the extent, to which the information is elicited in the cross-examination. For all practical purposes, the chief-ex