THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.1459 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner and respondents 3 to 10 herein filed O.S.No.17 of 2008, against respondents 1 & 2 and 11 to 13 herein, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Markapur, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and for mesne profits. The 2nd respondent remained ex parte. The trial of the suit commenced. The 1st respondent deposed as DW.1 and was subjected to cross- examination. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed an affidavit in lieu of chief- examination, as DW.2. The petitioner and respondents 3 to 10 herein filed I.A.No.174 of 2011, with a prayer to reject the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent in lieu of chief- examination. They invoked Section 139 of C.P.C. The application was opposed by the respondents. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 25.02.2011. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is not clear as to the provision invoked by her. Section 139 of C.P.C., which was mentioned in the I.A., pertains to the administration of oaths. It does not have any bearing as to who figured as witness in a suit, nor does it attaches disqualification to anyone from deposing as witness. Assuming that the petitioner is invoked the correct provision of law, it needs to be seen as to whether the 2nd respondent had incurred any disqualification. Order XVIII C.P.C., which deals with the manner in which the parties can depose as witnesses, does not insist that a party, who remained ex parte in a suit, cannot depose as a witness. Rule (3) thereof is only to the effect that where an individual, who figures as a party, intends to depose as witness, he must do so first, unless the Court accords permission to figure as a witness at a later stage. If a person has failed to file written statement, he does not incur disqualification to depose as witness, even if he has been set ex parte. Further, whatever may be the restrictions under which a defendant, who does not file a written statement may reel, the suits for partition, stand on a different footing. In suits of that category, the distinction between the plaintiff and defendant, virtually gets blurred. The effort in such suits would be, to ascertain the properties that are available for partition and to determine the shares. Some of the persons, who figure as defendants, may chose to support the case of the plaintiff, in case they too are entitled for a share. Therefore, the petitioner is not justified in filing the application for eschewing the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent from consideration, the evidence. If she is so advised, the petitioner can cross-examine the said witness, on such of the aspects, as regards, which she dealt with. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated: 12.07.2011 GJ