C. Praveen Kumar, J.

Aggrieved by the order, dated 09.08.2016, passed in I.A. No. 565 of 2016 in O.S. No.24 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, wherein an application filed under section 151 of C.P.C. to set aside the order of eschewing the evidence of DW.1, dated 08.07.2016, was dismissed, the petitioner, who is plaintiff in O.S. No.24 of 2010, filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3. The facts in issue are as under:

4. The plaintiffs filed O.S. No.24 of 2010 seeking injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. A written statement came to be filed on behalf of defendant No.1 on 10.06.2010. Defendant No.6 also filed a separate written statement in the month of July, 2016, by engaging a different lawyer. After completion of the plaintiffs' evidence, defendant No.1 filed his chief affidavit as DW.1 on 17.06.2015 and the matter was posted for his cross-examination to 25.01.2016. On that day, DW.1 was cross examined by the plaintiffs' counsel. It is said that the answers given by DW.1 show that he colluded with the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the matter was posted to 09.02.2016 for cross examination of DW.1 by defendant No.6. Since then, DW.1 did not turn up before the Court for subjecting himself to the cross-examination by defendant No.6. On 26.02.2016 learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 to 3 represented before the Court to eschew the evidence of DW.1 as he did not turn up. The Court accepted the request and closed the evidence of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and posted the case to 03.03.2016 for the evidence of defendant No.6. The record reveals that defendant No.6 took time for filing his chief affidavit on 14.03.2016 and the case was posted to 24.03.2016. On the said date, defendant No.6 filed an application vide I.A.No.270 of 2016 to recall DW.1 for the purpose of his cross examination, which was allowed on 14.06.2016. The matter was adjourned to 21.06.2016 for appearance of DW.1 and for his cross examination which again got adjourned to 28.06.2016. As DW.1 did not turn up, on 08.07.2016, a request was made for eschewing the evidence of DW.1. Since DW.1 failed to appear before the Court, the trial Court eschewed the evidence of DW.1 and posted the case to 19.07.2016. On 13.07.2016, an application came to be filed seeking to set aside the order eschewing the evidence of DW.1 on the ground that the plaintiffs may be put to irreparable loss and injury if the order is not set aside. The said application came to be rejected, against which the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed.

5. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that grave prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs if the evidence of DW.1 is eschewed from consideration since the evidence of DW.1 would tilt the case in their favour. It is further urged that the Court below has no jurisdiction to eschew the recorded evidence merely because DW.1 failed to appear before the Court for cross-examination by his co-defendants.

6. It is the case of defendant No.6 that plaintiff No. 2, who was examined as PW1, has stated in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in his cross examination, whereas, defendant No.1, who examined himself as DW1, answered in favour of the plaintiffs. It is his case that the application filed to set aside the order eschewing the evidence of DW.1, is only to gain wrongfully. It is also his case that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 colluded with the plaintiffs, got filed this petition with a view to grab the suit land. Having regard to the fact that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to review an order eschewing the evidence of DW.1, learned counsel for defendant No.6 submits that there are no merits in the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. The short questions that arise for consideration is; (1) w