1. The present revision is directed against the order dated 03.11.2010 of the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court made in I.A.No.16723 of 2010 in O.S.No.4750 of 2007.

2. The plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit are the petitioners herein and the first defendant thereon is the respondent herein.

3. The petitioners have filed the said suit against the respondent and few others for declaration that the public auction held on 27.06.2007 in respect of the first petitioner's property at Chennai is not binding on the first petitioner and for granting consequential injunction restraining the respondent and other defendants from claiming rights through them, from in anyway acting in furtherance of the alleged public action said to have been conducted on 27.06.2007 and declaring that the sale deed dated 09.11.2007 in favour of the defendants 4 and 5 in the said suit executed by the third defendant as void. In the said suit, the respondent herein has taken out an application in I.A.No.16723 of 2010 to defer the cross-examination of PW-1 till the first petitioner is examined in full as a witness. The said application was allowed by the Court below by its fair and final order dated 03.11.2010. The said order is under challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the second petitioner is the second plaintiff in the said suit and hence, even after his evidence, the first petitioner can examine himself later. Only if a third party witness enters into the witness box before the plaintiffs could examine themselves, permission has to be sought for from the Court as required under Order XVIII Rule 3A of the Civil Procedure Code. While so, the respondent's application to defer the cross-examination of PW-1, viz., the second plaintiff, till the first plaintiff is examined in full as a witness on the side of the plaintiffs in the said suit is untenable.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the entire claim in the plaint is that the suit property is owned by the first plaintiff and hence, even though the second plaintiff has been added as one of the plaintiff in the said suit, the first plaintiff alone in effect is the real plaintiff in the suit and hence, he should have been examined at the first instance. That apart it has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the second plaintiff viz., the second petitioner in this revision is only a guarantor and hence, he shall be considered only as a third party in the suit. Hence, he should not have been examined as PW-1. Even then, permission should have been sought for, for examining the second petitioner viz., the second plaintiff before examining the first plaintiff/first petitioner as required under Order XVIII Rule 3A of the Civil Procedure Code. Learned counsel relied on the following decisions Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani and another v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi (1995) 6 SCC 576, Achutananda Baidya v. Prafullya Kumar Gayen and others (1997) 5 SCC 76 and Ouseph Mathai and others v M.Abdul Khadir (2002) 1 SCC 319.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

7. The admitted facts are that the petitioners have filed the suit against the respondent herein and few others for various reliefs including that of a declaration that the public auction held on 27.06.2007 in respect of the property of the first petitioner, by the second defendant is not binding on the first petitioner and for other incidental reliefs. In the said suit, the second plaintiff viz., the second petitioner herein has examined himself as PW-1. He was also cross-examined on behalf of the respondent herein though for a limited while. Thereafter, the respondent has filed the application to defer the cross-examination of PW-1 till the first plaintiff is examined in full as a witness for the plaintiffs.

8. Before adv