ORDER:

This revision is filed against the order, dated 07.02.2023, in O.S.No.73 of 2015 on the file of the Court of XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet, by which the trial Court directed that the 9th defendant has to cross examine DW5 firstly and thereafter, defendants 1 & 2 and lastly by the plaintiff.

2. Heard Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants 1 & 2 and Sri M.R.S.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/plaintiff.

3. The suit is filed by the plaintiff for declaration of right, title and for delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property. The evidence of the plaintiff and defendants 1 & 2 who are private parties was completed. Thereafter, when the suit was posted for evidence of defendants 3 to 5, who are the official defendants, viz., State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Collector, Guntur District, Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Guntur District and Tahasildar, Narasaraopet Mandal, Guntur District, the affidavit of official witness is filed as DW5. The contents of the affidavit of DW5 are supporting the case of the plaintiff. Defendants 1 & 2 filed memo stating that it is settled law that the party to whom the witness is not adverse has to cross-examine the witness at first and party who is more adverse in interest has to cross-examine the witness at later, and therefore, the plaintiff has to first cross- examine the witness-DW5 and then defendants 1 & 2 would cross examine DW5. Later, objections were filed by the plaintiff in response to the objections of defendants 1 & 2 stating that the right of cross-examination can be exercised by co-defendants when their interest is in direct conflict with each other and the Court would call upon the plaintiff to cross-examine the defendant at the end. Therefore, the plaintiff has no objection to permit the defendants to cross-examine DW5, but the plaintiff would cross-examine the witness after cross-examination by defendants 1 & 2.

4. The fact that the evidence of DW5 goes in favour of the plaintiff is not in dispute. The trial Court observed that as per the pleadings, the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property under registered sale deeds and his vendor purchased the same from Murukutla Seetharamaiah, i.e., through the defendants 6 to 9 and that 4th defendant, i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet filed written statement stating that defendants 3 to 5 have not given assignments in respect of the government land and further that the orders passed by defendants 3 to 5 are legal and binding on the parties including the plaintiff and the defendants and also that the civil Courts have no jurisdiction to decide the legality of the orders passed by defendants 3 to 5. The trial Court further recorded that it is mentioned in the evidence of DW5 about cancellation of patta issued to Murukutla Seetharamaiah and also cancelation of assigned house patta given to defendants 1 and 2 against which defendants 1 & 2 preferred revision before the Joint Collector, Guntur. Under these circumstances, the trial Court observed that the evidence of DW5 is not in support of wholly or in part the case of the plaintiff or defendants 1 & 2 and moreover, DW5 (defendant No.5) being a Tahasildar would depose as per the records only, and therefore, the contention that defendants 1 & 2 would cross-examine DW5 only after the plaintiff completes cross- examination cannot be considered. Therefore, the trial Court directed defendants 1 & 2 to cross-examine DW5 after cross- examination by defendant No.9 and the plaintiff to cross-examine the witness lastly.

5. Having been aggrieved by such direction, the present revision was filed by the defendants 1 & 2 on the ground that their interests would be defeated if the plaintiff is permitted to be cross-examined by DW5 after cross-examination by defendants 1 & 2 on the ground that the evidence of DW5 is supporting the case of the plaintiff.

6. Learned counsel for the peti