M. P. CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE question which falls for determination in this case is whether refusal by the learned trial Judge to permit the defendant's Counsel to address questions in cross-examination on issues other than the issue in respect of which the evidence was tendered is correct or not. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to the case may be stated and they are as follows : The suit by the plaintiff is for possession. The defendant has set up the following defence, that he is a tenant-mortgagee in possession and after mortgage has been re-deemed, his tenancy has been revived and therefore he is entitled to continue in possession as tenant. In those circumstances, seven issues were framed by the trial Court. (1) Whether defendant proves that he was a tenant of the suit property on monthly rent of Rs. 145/- before mortgage transaction ? (2) If so, whether defendant proves that his tenancy rights will revive after the expiry of the period of mortgage ? (3) Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for damages at the rate of rs. 1000/- per month? (4) Whether defendant proves that suit is not maintainable? (5) Whether Court Fee paid is sufficient ? (6) Whether plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit property ? (7) What order or decree ?as can be see, except with reference to issue No. 3 regarding the claim of damages apparently for unauthorised occupation by the mortgagee even after redemption, the burden is cast on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has examined her power of attorney holder who is none other than her son who has spoken to the situation of the property, the probable rent that it fetches in the area etc. He has been cross examined in it spect of those matters by the Counsel for defendant. It was only when the Counsel for defendant attempted to put questions regarding matters touching upon issues nos. 1, 2 and 4 that the Court prevented the defendant from addressing those questions fn cross-examination despite the plea that Sec. 138 of the Evidence act specifically provided for cross-examination being not confined to what is spoken to in the examination in chief. Generally speaking, it is true that Sec. 138 of the Evidence Act does provide wide scope for cross-examination. It need not be confined to what is spoken to in examination in chief. Generally speaking, it is true that Sec. 138 of the Evidence Act does provide wide scope for cross-examination. It need not be confined to what is spoken to in examination in chief. But the question is whether in the facts and circumstances of this case when the plaintiff has reserved her right to lead evidence in rebuttal in regard to the burden cast on the defendant in respect of issue No. 6 where she is required to prove her entitlement for possession of the suit schedule property having regard to issue No. 1 questions touching on that aspect of the case should be permitted. Therefore, the opening part of second half of Sec. 138 of the Evidence Act clearly provides that the examination and cross-examination must relate to relevants facts. But the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness has stated in his examination chief. Therefore, the question in cross-examination also must be relevant to the fact which is required to be proved by that witness. Any deviation in respect of the relevancy of facts is permissible only to attack the reliability, character and such other things concerning the witness. That is why the wider scope is given while cross-examining a witness, in order to demonstrate the credibility of the witness or otherwise. Such wider scope conferred for purposes of cross-examination cannot be used to establish the case of the defendant which he is required to independently establish by producing relevant documentary or oral evidence to discharge the burden which is cast on him. ( 3 ) THEREFORE, the learned trial Judge has correctly reasoned out that having regard to the fact that the plaintiff has reserved the right to lead evidence in rebuttal will give ample opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine later after he has led his evidence in respect of which the burden is cast on the defendant. I therefore do so see, there is any error of reasoning or error of law committed in refusing cross-examination in regard to matters which are not relevant to the facts to which the witness has deposed, that is, in regard to issue No. 3. ( 4 ) SUBJECT to the above observation, this petition is rejected. Petition rejected. --- *** --- .