No party can be denied the right to tender evidence, and the truth of the evidence can only be tested in cross-examination.

K.Kannan, J.

1. The revision is against an order permitting the legal heirs of the 3rd defendant to give evidence after the plaintiffs side was closed. The petition came through the 2nd defendant, who contended that the legal heirs were actually supporting the plaintiff and their application for filing a separate written statement had earlier been rejected by the Court and that order had also become final. According to him, the legal heirs of the 3rd defendant ought not to be permitted to lead any evidence against the pleadings and if the defendants supported the plaintiff now, the permission that they were seeking to adduce evidence will cast irreparable harm to the 2nd defendant.

2. The Court, while allowing the application and permitting the legal heirs of the 3rd defendant to adduce evidence, has, in my view, protected the interest of the 2nd defendant by directing that the plaintiff shall first cross-examine and then the 2nd defendant shall have the right of cross-examination. No person who is arrayed as a party can ever be denied the right to tender his evidence. The truth or otherwise of the evidence could only be tested in the crossexamination and a party defendant cannot be thrown out at the threshold from offering the evidence which he proposes to tender before the Court. It will be always possible for the 2nd defendant to substantiate his own alleged plea of collusion between the plaintiff and the legal heirs of the 3rd defendant. The 2nd defendant will be entitled to take up all the defences open to him to impeach the value of the evidence proposed to be tendered by the legal heirs of the third defendant.

3. There is nothing amiss in the order of the Court below to be susceptible for interference in revision. Revision petition is consequentially dismissed.