O R D E R The respondents herein filed O.S.No.257 of 1997 in the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The petitioner figured as Defendant No. 2 and his brother, who incidentally is the father of respondents 1 to 3, was added as Defendant No. 1. The trial of the suit commenced. The evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs was closed and Defendant No.1 filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination as D.W.1. At the stage of cross-examination of D.W.1. the petitioner filed I.A.No.952 of 2004, claiming that he may be permitted to cross-examine D.W.1, only after the cross-examination of the said witness. on behalf of the plaintiffs. The trial Court dismissed the application, through its order, dated 13.10.2004. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though respondents 1 to 3 were served with notice, they have not chosen to enter appearance. 3. The petitioner claims that the Suit was filed by the respondents herein in collusion with their father i.e., Defendant No. 1. For all practical purposes, the petitioner alone was opposing the suit. On completion of recording of the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs, the Defendant No. 1 filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination as D.W.1. In the normal course of things, D.W.1 is to be cross-examined, on behalf of the plaintiffs. The other defendants would have their turn, to cross-examine such a witness, after he is cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. To be on safe side, the petitioner filed an application with a similar request. However, the trial Court rejected the same. 4. The request made by the petitioner assumes significance, when there is a clear allegation by him that there is collusion between D.W.1 and the plaintiffs. If the petitioner is permitted to cross-examine D.W.1, even before the plaintiffs cross-examine the said witness, it may give rise to several complications, apart from being contrary to the stipulated procedure. 5. It is not uncommon that out of several defendants in a suit, some of them may fall in line with the plaintiff. In such an event, the actual dispute would be between the plaintiff and his friendly defendant, on the one hand and the other defendants, on the other hand. 5. It is not uncommon that out of several defendants in a suit, some of them may fall in line with the plaintiff. In such an event, the actual dispute would be between the plaintiff and his friendly defendant, on the one hand and the other defendants, on the other hand. Sections 137 and 138 of Evidence Act do not restrict the right of cross-examination of witnesses to other parties alone, as arrayed in the suit. Depending upon the facts, one defendant may have the necessity to cross-examine the witness examined by the other defendant. In exceptional cases, particularly, where collusion is alleged, the actual cross-examination takes place when it is done by the defendant, who actually opposed the claim of the plaintiff, and not by the one who sails with the plaintiff. 6. If the petitioner is able to elicit some information from D.W.1, in the cross examination, it is likely to be neutralized, during the course of cross- examination by the plaintiffs, if, in fact, there existed any collusion between D.W.1 and the plaintiffs. The trial Court did not assign any reasons, while dismissing the application. 7. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.952 of 2004 shall stand allowed. It is directed that the trial Court shall insist the plaintiffs in the Suit to cross-examine D.W.1, before the turn of the petitioner herein comes. In case, the plaintiffs are not willing to cross examine D.W. 1. they shall not be accorded any permission, to do so, once D.W.1 is cross-examined by the petitioner herein. 8. Since the Suit is of the year 1997, the trial Court is directed to expedite the disposal of the same, on priority basis. There shall be no order as to costs. --X—