ORDER Samvatsar, J. -- 1. Heard. 2. This petition is filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders dated 7th and 12th January, 2009, passed by X Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 138A/2004, whereby the Court has issued an order, rejecting the prayer of the present petitioner to cross-examine one of the witnesses, namely, Vinod Kumar Agrawal, whose affidavit is filed by the respondent-plaintiff. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff has filed a civil suit against the present petitioner for ejectment and recovery of rent. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed affidavits of some of the witnesses including that of Vinod Kumar Agrawal. The defendant made a prayer for cross-examination of the said Vinod Kumar Agrawal. The plaintiff refused to tender Vinod Kumar Agrawal for crossexamination and contended that if he is not relying on the statement of Vinod Kumar Agrawal his statement should not be read in the evidence. The Court rejected the application filed by the present petitioner and held that the affidavit of Vinod Kumar Agrawal shall not be read in the evidence. This order is under challenge in this petition. 4. Once, the plaintiff has filed an affidavit of Vinod Kumar for examination-in-chief, it is right of the defendant for cross-examination. If the said witness is not tendered for cross-examination by the plaintiff then an adverse inference should be drawn against the plaintiff for not tendering the said witness in the cross-examination. 5. So far as his examination-in-chief is concerned, if the defendant wants to rely on the said evidence, the defendant-petitioner can always rely on the same and the Court cannot say that the said examination-inchief shall not be read at the time of deciding the case. Therefore, the Court has committed jurisdictional error in holding that the affidavit of Vi nod Kumar Agrawal shall not be read at the time of decision of the case. As there is no cross-examination by the defendant in the present case, the defendant is ready and willing to cross-examine Vinod Kumar Agrawal. In such circumstances, he can definitely rely on the affidavit on behalf of Vinod Kumar Agrawal filed by the plaintiff and the Court can also draw an adverse inference against the plaintiff for not producing the said witness for cross-examination. 6. With the above observation this petition stands allowed.