The main legal point established is that the procedural rules governing witness examination, specifically Order XVIII Rule 4 C.P.C. and Sections 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, do not permit the reception of additional evidence of chief examination after cross-examination.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the 2nd plaintiff in the suit that is pending before the learned trial Court. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the suit. Respondent No.4 is 1st plaintiff in the suit. Respondent No.5 is 3rd plaintiff in the suit. In this revision petition, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are shown as not necessary parties.

2. Sri T.C.Krishnan, the learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri P.Ganga Rami Reddy, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted arguments.

3. This revision assails the order dated 31.12.2018 of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore in I.A.No.237 of 2018 in O.S.No.107 of 2013. By the said order, the application filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Aggrieved by it, the present revision is filed by the 2nd plaintiff in the suit.

4. O.S.No.107 of 2013 is a suit filed by plaintiffs to declare that the suit schedule property is a public road which could be used only for public purposes and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the rights of plaintiffs and the public in making use of the suit schedule property and for costs and such other reliefs.

5. Both sides entered their pleadings, issues were settled and trial commenced. Two witnesses testified. Then Sri Ponari Venkata Rao, S/o. Danda Sai, who is the 2nd plaintiff in the suit, filed his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit. This was filed into Court on 06.12.2017. Thereafter, it was on 18.07.2018 the witness/PW.3/Sri Ponari Venkata Rao appeared before the Court. In continuation of his examination-in-chief affidavit, the learned counsel for plaintiffs continued examination-in-chief and the witness stated that he filed his evidence by way of affidavit and subscribed his signature on it. His own counsel then asked him whether he knew contents of evidence affidavit. The reply of the witness was that he did not know the contents. Though the witness so stated that he did not know the contents of his evidence affidavit, he was tendered for cross-examination. The witness was first examined in cross on behalf of defendant No.1. In this cross-examination, the witness said that the suit is filed concerning a road. When he was asked about the boundaries of the suit schedule property and its survey number, he stated that he did not know the survey number or the boundaries of the plaint schedule property. He was then asked about documents filed by the plaintiffs in the suit. Though he is one of the plaintiffs in the suit, his reply was that he did not know what were the documents filed by them in the suit. Thereafter, this witness was tendered for cross-examination on behalf of defendant No.2. It seems that defendant No.2 requested the trial Court to consider the cross-examination held for defendant No.1 applicable for defendant No.2.

6. In the above referred circumstances, where a party witness/2nd plaintiff as PW.3 though admitted his signature on his evidence affidavit, denied his knowledge of contents of what is written in his affidavit, he took recourse by filing an application in I.A.No.237 of 2018 in O.S.No.107 of 2013 under Section 151 C.P.C. before the learned trial Court. By that application he sought leave of the Court to permit him to file an additional affidavit of examination-in-chief. Defendants in the suit filed a counter and resisted the petition. After due enquiry, by an order dated 31.12.2018 the learned trial Court dismissed that petition. In the impugned order, the learned trial Court explained the principles contained in Sections 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which hold the legislative mandate about examination of witnesses and their cross-examination and re-examination. It then stated that the provisions of law do not indicate any principle allowing a Court to receive additional evidence of chief examination subsequent to cross-examination of the witness by the