ORDER:

Defendant No.1 in the suit filed the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order, dated 05.07.2022 passed in I.A.No.375 of 2022 in O.S.No.54 of 2021 on the file of learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

2. Respondent No.1 herein being the plaintiff filed O.S.No.54 of 2021 against the petitioner and other respondents for declaration of title, cancellation of registered sale deed bearing document No.4324 of 2015, dated 30.07.2015 and for consequential relief of permanent injunction.

3. The suit schedule property is an extent of Ac.0-49 cents situated in R.S.No.45 of Ganguru village, Penamaluru Mandal, Kankipadu Sub Registry, Krishna District. Plaintiff while praying for declaration of title, also sought to cancel the sale deed executed by defendant No.3 as GPA of defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No1.

4. By filing written statement, defendant Nos.2 and 3 admitted execution of sale deed in favour of defendant No.1.

5. After completion of pleadings, plaintiff filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination. At that point of time, defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.375 of 2022 under section 151 of CPC seeking a direction to defendant Nos.2 and 3 to let in their evidence including the cross-examination of plaintiff and his witnesses at the first instance and permit defendant No.1 Company to let in its evidence thereafter and for cross examination.

6. Plaintiff reported no objection. However, defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed counter and opposed the application. By order, dated

05.07.2022, lower Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that though defendant No.3 executed sale deed on behalf of defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1, defendant No.1 is apprehending collusion between defendant Nos.2 and 3 on one side and the plaintiff on the other side. Hence, defendant No.1 filed the aforementioned petition seeking permission of the Court to permit defendant Nos.2 and 3 to cross-examine the plaintiff and his witnesses at first instance. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that if defendant Nos.2 and 3 conduct cross-examination there will be no need for defendant No.1 to examine the plaintiff and his witnesses, except to adopt the cross-examination. He also would submit that the disputes, if any, pleaded by the plaintiff in between himself on one hand and defendant Nos.2 and 3 on the hand requires to be elicited by defendant Nos.2 and 3 only.

9. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff while supporting the order of the Court below would submit that the defendants are procrastinating the proceedings and prayed the Court to dismiss the revision.

10. The following points arise for consideration:

1. Whether the Court below failed to exercise jurisdiction vested with it?

2. Whether the defendant Nos.2 and 3 shall cross examine plaintiff and his witnesses prior to cross examination of defendant No.1?

11. Order XVIII Rule 9 of CPC provides that the party having the right to begin shall first produce his evidence in support of the issues which he is bound to prove and thereafter the “other party shall produce his evidence”. Rule 3 of Order XVIII further provides that where there are several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the other party, the party beginning may, at his option, either produce his evidence on those issues at the time of producing evidence in support of the issues of which the burden was placed upon that party, or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party and in the latter case the party beginning will have an opportunity to produce evidence in rebuttal in respect of those issues of which the burden was placed on the other party, after the other party has produced all his evidence.

12. Where there are two sets of defendants, one set supporting the plaintiff and another set of defendant