These revisions are directed against the order dated 211. 2007 in I.A.Nos.648 of 2007 and 658 of 2007 in O.S.No.386 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, (FTC-1) whereby and whereunder the application filed by the first respondent to reject the proof affidavit of D.W.1 and to proceed in accordance with law after eschewing evidence of D.W.1 was allowed (I.A.No.658 of 2007) and the application filed by the revision petitioner to direct the respondents to cross examine the witness Vishnudas as D.W.2 was dismissed. (I.A.No.648 of 2007).

.2. The facts:

.The suit in O.S.No.210 of 1997 was filed by the first respondent before the Subordinate Judge, Chengalpat which subsequently renumbered as O.S.No.386 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Judge, (F.T.C.No.1) Chengalpat.

3. The suit was instituted by the first respondent praying for a judgment and Decree to partition the suit property into six shares and for allotment of one such share to her and for other consequential reliefs.

4. In the suit in O.S.No.210 of 1997, it was the contention of the first respondent that her father Mr. R.N. Philips, the husband of the petitioner herein and the father of respondents 2 to 4 was an ex-service man and he occupied various positions in the government and the after superannuation, he made a sizeable amount by way of wise investment. Late R.N. Philips purchased substantial property in and around Chennai and he has also made investment in the capital gain units and he also purchased gold and silver wares. However, the health condition of the common ancestor deteriorated day by day and in 1989, he had a fall and his hip bone was broken. Since 1988, his mental faculties had also been impaired and at that point of time, the third respondent exploited him by making use of his helpless situation. Subsequently, Mr. Philips died on 20.10.1992.

5. While so, the first respondent came to know that proceedings had been initiated before the High Court of Madras for grant of letters of administration in respect of a Will stated to have been executed on 5. 1989 by the deceased Philips. The said Will was fabricated and as such, the first respondent objected to the grant of letters of administration and the petition was dismissed for default on 27. 1994. Even though the petition was restored subsequently, the revision petitioner as per her application in A.No.3884 of 1996 requested the Court to return the original Will as she was no more interested in prosecuting the application for Letters of Administration. However, even after dismissal of the petition, there was no attempt made by the co-owners to render accounts of the property as well as its income which made the first respondent to file the suit for partition.

.6. The suit was contested by the revision petitioner as well as the other respondents. In the written statement filed by the revision petitioner as first defendant, it was her contention that the property was purchased by her husband with the money contributed by her and as such, her deceased husband was not the sole owner of the property. According to her, she alone was in possession of the property and the plea of joint possession was made up only for the purpose of payment of lesser Court fee. The revision petitioner also denied the claim made by the first respondent in respect of the suit property as according to her, she was entitled to half share in all the properties left by the deceased Philips and 1/5 share in the other half of the property being the legal heir of the deceased. Accordingly, she prayed for dismissal of the suit.

7. The matter was taken up for trial and in order to examine her on commission, revision petitioner filed an application before the trial Court. The said application was allowed and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to record her evidence. The revision petitioner was examined on commission as D.W.1 on 13. 2007 and she was subsequently cross examined on 14. 2007 a