THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 4692 of 2009 Oral order: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 05.06.2009, passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 256 of 2009 in O.S. No. 208 of 2009, filed by the petitioner, praying to eschew the evidence of P.W.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant and perused the order under revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unless the respondent-plaintiff first examines herself as a witness, no other witness can be examined, unless permitted by the Court for the reasons recorded in writing, and since the husband of the respondent examined himself as P.W.1, by filing affidavit-in-lieu of chief, before the respondent-plaintiff first examining herself as a witness, and no permission having been granted by the Court, his evidence should be eschewed, and in support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao[1]. Hence, he prayed that the order under revision be set aside, and the evidence of P.W.1 be eschewed. The request of the petitioner-defendant to eschew the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be accepted. Admittedly, P.W.1 is the husband of the respondent-plaintiff. He merely filed affidavit-in-lieu of chief, as a witness, on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff. The petitioner-defendant has not cross-examined P.W. 1. If P.W.1 after filing affidavit-in-lieu of chief does not turn up for cross-examination by the petitioner- defendant, then his evidence can be eschewed, but certainly not on the ground that he not being a party to the suit, cannot be examined first unless the plaintiff examines himself as a witness. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant on the judgment of the apex Court in Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao, would not assist him in any manner because in the instant case, the petitioner- defendant is seeking to eschew the evidence of P.W.1, while that is not the spirit of the judgment on which he placed reliance. In the above view of the matter, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The C.R.P. is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: December, 2009. KSR [1] (1999) 3 SCC 573