This revision is directed against the order of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichy, dated 8. 1996 in I.A. No.157 of 1996 in O.S. No.216 of 1983.

.2. The short facts of the case are as follows: One AL.Shanmugam filed O.S. No.216 of 1983 praying for partition of the suit property into two equal shares and allotment of one share to the plaintiff. The trial of the suit commenced and the said Shanmugam was examined as the plaintiff’s witness. The chief examination was over and the petitioner’s counsel cross-examined the plaintiff. Several answers were also elicited from the witness. According to the petitioner, the witness was giving answers correctly to the questions put to him, but he took time for answering the questions. The court also put questions to the witness which the witness answered. Some of the answers for the questions put in the cross examination were not in favour of the plaintiff’s case. At that time the plaintiff’s counsel stated that the witness is not answering the questions properly. The petitioner/ defendant’s counsel also agreed that the witness is taking too much of time to answer each question. The learned trial Judge immediately made an endor