THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4112 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: Heard both sides. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 21.07.2009, passed by the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, allowing the application in I.A.No.172 of 2009 in O.S.No.3444 of 2003, filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying the Court to direct the plaintiff to produce the other witness also along with him, who are connected to the will, dated 08.05.2003, at a time for cross-examination. 4. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit. 6. It appears, in main controversy in the suit is regarding the execution of the will. The theory of will has been propounded by the plaintiff. In order to substantiate the case, the plaintiff got himself examined in chief as P.W-1. At that point of time, the defendants instead of cross-examining P.W-1, filed the present application to defer the cross-examination of P.W-1 (the plaintiff), till the plaintiff examines the other witnesses also on his behalf. 7. In other words, the intention of the defendants is to cross-examine the P.W-1 (the plaintiff), only after the other witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff were examined in chief. 8. On the face of it, the impugned order cannot be sustained for the simple reason, as already pointed out, that it is the plaintiff who propounded the theory of will and as such, the burden to prove the execution of the will heavily lies on him. When the plaintiff got himself examined in chief, it is for the defendants to cross- examine him and cross-examine the other witnesses as and when the plaintiff examines the other witnesses, to prove the execution of the will. But, it is neither prerogative nor proper for the defendants to file an application like the present one, seeking permission of the Court to cross- examine P.W-1 only after the other witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff are examined in chief. This is absolutely unreasonable request, even as per the Civil Procedure Code. It is for the plaintiff to establish his case by examining the witnesses of his convenience, and as approved by the Court. The defendants cannot make a request to permit them to cross-examine P.W-1, who was already examined in chief, only after the other witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff are examined. In a way, the defendants are seeking permission of the Court for a wholesale cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, which cannot be granted. 9. For the foregoing, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be allowed. 10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order, dated 21.07.2009, passed in I.A.No.172 of 2009 in O.S.No.3444 of 2003 on the file of the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 18th December 2009 dr