Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 08.08.2005 made in I.A.No.11 of 2005 in O.S.No.25 of 2004 on the file of Additional Sub Court, Nagapattinam.) The above Civil Revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sub Judge, Nagapattinam, dated 08.08.2005 made in I.A.No.11 of 2005 in O.S.No.25 of 2004, in and by which, the learned Judge has allowed the application filed by the plaintiff debarring the first defendant from examining the Branch Manager, City Union Bank, Nagapattinam, in respect of cheques as mentioned in the list of witnesses submitted before the Court below. 2. The respondents though duly served notice from this Court, they have not chosen to contest the above revision by engaging a counsel. 3. Heard Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner-first defendant has brought to my notice the specific plea taken in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the written statement and submitted that in support of the defence, the first defendant has filed the list of witnesses mentioning the details regarding the payment made by way of cheques, the cheque numbers and the date etc. It is the claim of the petitioner that in order to substantiate the said defence, it is but proper to examine the Branch Manager, City Union Bank, Nagapattinam, as a witness. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek an order debarring the first defendant from producing witnesses in support of his defence. 5. In the light of the said contention, I have verified necessary averments in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the written statement as well as the list of witnesses and other details, which are available at page 67 of the typed set of papers and the order impugned in this revision. In view of the specific stand, I am of the view that the petitioner-first defendant is entitled to examine the Branch Manager, City Union Bank, Nagapattinam, in order to substantiate his defence. The learned Additional Subordinate judge, Nagapattinam, has committed an error in ordering the application filed by the plaintiff debarring the first defendant from examining the Branch Manager, City Union Bank, Nagapattinam, in support of his stand. The learned Additional Subordinate judge, Nagapattinam, has committed an error in ordering the application filed by the plaintiff debarring the first defendant from examining the Branch Manager, City Union Bank, Nagapattinam, in support of his stand. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, every suitor has a right to present his witness before the Court to prove/substantiate his case. It is equally open to the other side to cross-examine the witnesses and establish the relevancy of the deposition. Further, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, has failed to note that the Branch Manager, City Union Bank, Nagapattinam, had been named as a witness in the list of witnesses furnished under Order XVI Rule 1 C.P.C. In such circumstances, I am satisfied that the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, is not correct in debarring the first defendant from bringing a particular witness viz., Branch Manager, City Union Bank, Nagapattinam, for examination and the conclusion of the learned Judge cannot be sustained. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 08.08.2005 made in I.A.No.11 of 2005 in O.S.No.25 of 2004 is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. CMP No.18037 of 2005 is closed.