( 1 ) SAID witness, were elicited and the said portion of evidence does not fit into the very phenomenon of cross-examination. ( 2 ) THE short question, that arises for consideration in this Civil revision Petition is as to whether the portion of the evidence of P. W. 1, which relates to the cross-examination on behalf of the first defendant, is liable to deleted. ( 3 ) IN the trial of a suit, any witness examined on behalf of the plaintiffs must be cross-examined by the defendants. If all the defendants are sailing together, common cross-examination on their behalf would suffice. On the other hand, if there is any conflict of interests as between defendants, the cross examination of the witness examined on behalf of the plaintiffs, must be in the same erder, as is reflected in the array of the parties. Exception to this is that such of the defendants, who sail with the plaintiffs, must be required to cross-examine the witness first and the defendants, who oppose the claim of the plaintiffs, irrespective of their array in the cause title, must be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the end. The reason is that the actual cross-examination of a witness can take place, only in the hands of a party opposing the claim. If during the course of such cross-examination, an otherwise friendly defendant, who figures lower in the array, is permitted to cross-examine that witness, at the end, there is every likelihood of the purport of the actual cross examination being neutralized. This Court expressed such a view in Kada Kondayya vs. Kada Veera Venkata Satya Kumari2006 (5)ALD (NOC) 91. ( 4 ) IN the instant case, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the second defendant-petitioner herein, with the cross examination of p. W. 1, on behalf of the first defendant. The question of any defendant, whether he opposes or supports the claim of the plaintiffs, being denied the very right to cross-examine a witness, does not arise. As observed earlier, depending on the nature of the stand taken by the respective defendants, the order of cross-examination must be changed. The question of any defendant, whether he opposes or supports the claim of the plaintiffs, being denied the very right to cross-examine a witness, does not arise. As observed earlier, depending on the nature of the stand taken by the respective defendants, the order of cross-examination must be changed. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner-second defendant submits that since the third defendant is also sailing with the plaintiff, he must be required to cross examine P. W. 1, before the second defendant is required to do so. The purport of, and the relief claimed in the present LA. is different. If the second defendant is of the. view that the cross-examination on his behalf must be deferred till the third defendant completes his turn, it shall certainly be open to him to make an appropriate application before the trial Court; and such an application, if made, shall be considered, on its own merits. ( 6 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. .