THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.243 of 2010 Date of Order: 02-09-2011 Between: Grandhisiri Radhakrishna Rao ..Petitioner And 1. Grandhisiri Chandravathi and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.243 of 2010 ORAL Order: Petitioner filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution aggrieved by the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tiruvuru in dismissing I.A.No.519 of 2009 in O.S.No.163 of 2002, dated 02-12-2009 whereunder the request of the petitioner to prevent the second respondent, who is not a party to O.S.No.163 of 2002, to cross-examine the first respondent and her witnesses. The petitioner herein filed O.S.No.114 of 2002 against respondents 2 and 3 for permanent injunction in respect of 416 square yards of house site. After filing the said suit, the 1st respondent, who is not a party to O.S.No.114 of 2002, filed O.S.No.163 of 2002 against the petitioner for permanent injunction in respect of 208 square yards house site and tiled portion of house bearing Door No.17/33 (Old Door No.3/239). The suit schedule property in O.S.No.163 of 2002 is a part and parcel of schedule property in O.S.No.114 of 2002. So, both the suits were clubbed as per the orders in I.A.No.145 of 2007 and evidence has been taken place in O.S.No.163 of 2002. During the course of trial, the plaintiff in O.S.No.163 of 2002, first respondent herein, was examined as P.W.1 and she was cross- examined by the petitioner herein. The petitioner filed the impugned I.A. stating that the first respondent herein who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.163 of 2002 and second respondent herein is the defendant in O.S.No.114 of 2002 and their pleas are identical and not adverse in any respect. Therefore, the second respondent has no right to cross- examine the first respondent. The first respondent filed counter stating that she is not colluded with respondents 2 and 3. The second respondent filed counter that his claim and the claim of the plaintiff is not one and the same and there are some variations in the claim. Therefore, he has got right to cross-examine the plaintiff and the petitioner cannot prevent him to cross-examine the plaintiff—P.W.1. On dismissal of I.A. the present revision is filed. The petitioner herein, who filed O.S.No.114 of 2002, claimed his title over the property by virtue of Will deed dated 23-06-1980 executed by his father. The second respondent who is the first defendant in O.S.No.114 of 2002 filed his written statement denying the Will deed dated 23-06-1980 and contended that it is a forged document and further pleaded that his father executed Will deed dated 30-06-1982. In O.S.No.163 of 2002 the first respondent herein is the plaintiff who filed the suit for permanent injunction relying upon Will deed dated 30-06-1982. The said Will is also relied upon by the second respondent, who is the first defendant in O.S.No.114 of 2002. The petitioner and the second respondent are brothers and sons of the first respondent, who is their mother and both of them are claiming properties under two separate Wills executed by their father. The second respondent has to establish execution of Will deed dated 30- 06-1982 under which the first respondent claiming her share. Their interests are adverse to the petitioner herein. Both of the respondents 1 and 2 are denying Will deed dated 23-06-1980 set up by the petitioner. Since the first respondent, who is examined as P.W.1 and plaintiff in O.S.No.163 of 2002, is not a party to O.S.No.114 of 2002 and the second respondent is not a party to O.S.No.163 of 2002 filed by first respondent (P.W.1). If P.W.1 has not been cross-examined, her interest under the Will deed will be in jeopardy. In view of the same, the lower court rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner that the second respondent cannot cross-examine the first respondent—P.W.1. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 02-09-2011 Murthy