Interest of both plaintiff and defendant is common.

The revision petition has been filed against the order dismissing the petition seeking permission to examine the first defendant as a witness on the side of the petitioner who is the plaintiff.

2. The petitioner filed O.S. No.198/99 before the District Munsif, Erode for declaring the right of the plaintiff to take water from the suit wells and to restrain the defendants from interfering with his rights and for other reliefs.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is entitled to take water from the suit wells. All the parties are related. The respondent herein is the fourth defendant. When the petitioner applied to the P.W.D. and Revenue Department for their permission to lay a pipe-line through the Poramboke lands, he got the consent of the defendants 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. According to the petitioner, the respondent herein also gave an oral consent. It is also the case of the petitioner that the defendants 1, 2, 5 and 9 have no objection to his taking water from the suit wells. The suit was filed because, the defendants 3 and 4 threatened to break and destroy the pipe-line. The petitioner relied on the sale deed dated 16-11-94 in which the first defendant is

"one of the witnesses and the letter addressed to the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., wherein amongst others, the first defendant had given his no objection to the petitioner taking water from the suit well.

4. The fourth defendant who is the respondent herein filed his written statement denying the oral consent and denying the right of the petitioner to take water. It is also the case of the respondent that the other defendants being related to the petitioner one way or the other, they have colluded and created documents to support the petitioner's case. The third defendant filed his written statement, but remained ex parte. The other defendants have not filed their written statement and do not is intend to contest the suit. At this juncture, the petitioner filed I.A. No.1151/2000. It was stated therein that none of the defendants except the respondent herein are contesting the suit. Permission was sought to examine D1 as a witness, since he is a party to the sale deed referred to above and marked as Ex.A2 and a no objection letter referred to above marked as Ex.A18. In this petition, the respondent who is the fourth defendant alone was made a party. He filed his counter stating that the petition ought not to be allowed since the first defendant is inimical to the respondent and that the decisions of various Courts have also been to the effect that the practice of calling the opposite party as witness is objectionable. Learned Additional District Munsif, Erode considered the authorities cited before him and dismissed the petition. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this revision.

5. Mr. Murugamanickam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decisions relied on by the Court below will not apply to this case since the first defendant cannot be strictly considered as an opposite party. When the first defendant has no intention of contesting the suit or resisting the suit claim, calling him as a witness will really not amount to abuse of process o law.

6. Mr. M.M. Sundaresh, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there was no necessity to call the first defendant since the entire suit lingers on whether the fourth defendant i.e. the respondent had given consent or not. He also submitted that the petitioner has approached the Court for permission to examine the first defendant with an oblique motive.

7. The provision in the CPC regarding examination of a party as a witness is laid down in Order 16, Rule 21, which reads as follows:

"Where any party to a suit is required to give evidence or to produce a document, the provisions as to witnesses shall apply to him so far as they are applicable."

'Therefore, the CPC itself does contemplate the situation where a party may be required to give evidence or to produce a document. The word "requires" itself show