ORDER The petitioners herein are the defendants in O.S.No.205 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Madakasira. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein for partition of the suit schedule property and for separate possession of his 1/4th share and other consequential reliefs. The Revision petitioners/defendants contested the suit and during the course of evidence D.W.1 was examined on their behalf. An affidavit of D.W.1 in lieu of chief-examination was filed and thereafter he was also cross-examined by the counsel for plaintiff in part on 19-7-2007 during which EX.A-3 document was marked. However, D.W.1 failed to appear for further cross-examination and consequently by order dated 17-8-2007 his evidence was eschewed. 2. Subsequently the plaintiff filed I.A.No.625 of 2007 under Section 151 of C.P.C. to set aside the order dated 17 -8-2007 stating that no sufficient reasons could be shown for non-production of D.W.1 for further cross-examination. Though the defendants filed a counter and opposed the said petition, the Court below by order dated 8-4-2008 allowed I.A.No.625 of 2007 and set aside the earlier order dated 17-8-2007 on payment of costs of RS.200/-. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India contending that the Court below committed a grave error in allowing I.A.No.625 of 2007 thereby compelling DW.1 to subject himself to cross-examination. It is also contended that since the order dated 17-8-2007 eschewing DW.1 has become final, the same cannot be recalled or set aside in exercise of powers under Section 151 of C.P.C. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. . 5. Despite notice, the respondent did not choose to appear. 6. Admittedly, D.W.1 was partly cross-examined by the counsel for the plaintiff on 19-7-2007 during which a document was marked on behalf of the plaintiffs as EX.A-3. According to the plaintiff, D.W.1 had also made certain material admissions during cross-examination. However, D.W.1 did not make himself available for further cross-examination though the matter underwent four adjournments on 1-8-2007, 3-8-2007, 9-8-2007 and 17-8-2007. I n the circumstances, by order dated 17-8-2007 the evidence of D.W.1 was eschewed. According to the plaintiff, D.W.1 had also made certain material admissions during cross-examination. However, D.W.1 did not make himself available for further cross-examination though the matter underwent four adjournments on 1-8-2007, 3-8-2007, 9-8-2007 and 17-8-2007. I n the circumstances, by order dated 17-8-2007 the evidence of D.W.1 was eschewed. Thereafter, while the matter was coming up for further evidence on behalf of the defendants and D.W.2 had filed his affidavit in lieu of chief-examination, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.625 of 2007 to set aside the order dated 17-8-2007 and the said petition was allowed observing that the evidence of DW.1 was crucial. 7. Chapter-X of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, deals with the examination of the witnesses. As per Section 138 of the Evidence Act, a witness shall be first examined in chief and then he can be cross-examined if the opposite party so desires. In case a witness, after examination-in-chief, failed to make himself available for the cross-examination by the opposite party, may be his evidence in chief can be eschewed since there was no opportunity to the opposite party to test the veracity of the evidence in chief. However, when a witness was already cross-examined by the adverse party to some extent, merely because he failed to make himself available for further cross-examination, the entire evidence cannot be eschewed. It is relevant to note that cross-examination under Section 138 of the Evidence Act need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified in his examination-in-chief but he can be examined as to the whole of the case. Particularly in the present case, EX.A-3 document was marked on behalf of the plaintiff through DW.1 and according to the plaintiff certain material admissions were also made by D.W.1 during his cross-examination. In the circumstances, the eschewal of the entire evidence of D.W.1 causes prejudice to the plaintiff. It is also relevant to note that setting aside such an order does not result in compelling D.W.1 to subject himself to further cross-examination, but it would only enable the Court to take into consideration the evidence already recorded. Hence, the order dated 17-8-2007 eschewing the evidence of D.W.1 was erroneous and the said procedure adopted by the Court below resulted in failure of justice. 8. Hence, the order dated 17-8-2007 eschewing the evidence of D.W.1 was erroneous and the said procedure adopted by the Court below resulted in failure of justice. 8. However, the question that arises for consideration is whether the Court below was justified in setting aside the order dated 17-8-2007 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 151 of C.P.C. It is contended on behalf of the Revision petitioners that since the plaintiff allowed the order dated 17-8-2007 to become final, it is not open to him to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of C.P.C. 9. The law is well-settled that Section 151 of C.P.C. saves the inherent powers of the Court to pass such orders as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice so long as such order is not contrary to the express provisions of any statute. It is also a well settled principle that the exercise of the inherent power under Section 151 of C.P.C. cannot be held to be bad merely on the ground that there is no express provision under any statute dealing with the matter. 10. The order dated 17-08-2007 passed by the Court below in eschewing the whole evidence of g.W.1 is only a procedural error and such error which vitiated the entire proceedings in the suit resulting in miscarriage of justice can always be corrected by the court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151 of C.P.C. 11. No provision could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is any statutory bar in exercise of such power by the Court below. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the order under Revision which does not suffer from any patent error of fact or law warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.