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