ORDER The petitioners filed O.S. No.27 of 2011 in the Court of the principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry against the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,24,906/- on the strength of two promissory notes, dated 30-12-2007. The respondent filed a written statement stating inter alia that his signatures were obtained on the blank promissory notes by the petitioners at the time of registration of a document in respect of an item of immovable property. The trial of the suit commenced. The affidavit in lieu of chief examination of PW-1 was filed. At this stage, the respondent filed I.A. No.2110 of 2011 under Section 151 CPC praying that the cross examination of PW-1 be deferred till the affidavits in lieu of chief examination of all other witnesses, to be examined on behalf of the petitioners herein, are filed. The petitioners opposed the application on the grounds of facts and law. 2. The trial Court, however, allowed the I.A. through its order, dated 13-12-2011. Hence, this revision. 3. Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the I.A. filed by the respondent is not referable to any specific provision of law and the prayer made by him is not tenable. He submits that filing of an affidavit in lieu of chief examination is nothing but a substitute for chief examination, and requiring the petitioners herein to file all the affidavits of the proposed witnesses would result in travesty of justice. 4. Though the respondent is served with notice, he has not chosen to enter appearance. 5. The subject matter of this writ petition presents another anomaly resulting from the amendment of Civil Procedure Code through which the process of chief examination was replaced with the filing of affidavits, in lieu thereof. 6. It appears that the Parliament took note of the fact that the chief examination of a witness would be nothing but a statement of whatever he intends to make and it was felt that it should not make any difference whether the statement is made in the Court orally or through an affidavit. However, certain basic tenets involved in the matter of chief examination such as impermissibility to put leading questions on behalf of the party who proposes to examine him, the opportunity for the Court to observe the demeanor of the witness etc., do not appear to have been taken note of. However, certain basic tenets involved in the matter of chief examination such as impermissibility to put leading questions on behalf of the party who proposes to examine him, the opportunity for the Court to observe the demeanor of the witness etc., do not appear to have been taken note of. Be that as it may, as the law stands now, filing of an affidavit by a witness would be equivalent to his examination in chief, in the evidence. On filing of the affidavit, the witness is to be cross-examined. The basic principles of evidence mandate that it is only when the evidence of a witness is complete in all its respects, that another witness can be examined. It would be contrary to the order of examinations ordained in Section 138 of the Evidence Act. 7. The application filed by the respondent to the effect that the cross-examination of PW-1 must be deferred till rest of the witnesses to be examined by the petitioners, file their affidavits in lieu of chief examination, is not referable to any provision of law. On the other hand, acceding to such a request would result in several anomalies. For all practical purposes, the respondent wanted that all the witnesses, whom the petitioners proposed to be examined must be examined in chief first and their cross-examination must be undertaken later. Such a course is not only unknown in the trial of suits, but also would some times ruin the very concept of evidence. In a given case, a party may frame the evidence of his witness depending upon what has been elicited in the cross-examination of a witness examined already. This privilege, available to a party, would be defeated in case the chief examination of all the witnesses is to be placed before the Court, at a time. 8. Take for instance, a suit in which proof of a document is at issue. If in the cross-examination of the witness, who speaks on behalf of the plaintiff, no suggestion is made doubting the signature on the document or its examination, the plaintiff may not be under the necessity to adduce further evidence. If on the other hand, execution is denied and suggestions such as the executant of or witnesses to the document were at a place other than that of its execution, steps may have to be taken to demolish the plea of alibi. If on the other hand, execution is denied and suggestions such as the executant of or witnesses to the document were at a place other than that of its execution, steps may have to be taken to demolish the plea of alibi. Not only the purport of the evidence of the listed witnesses must be reframed but also other witnesses may have to be examined. This would not be possible, if all the witnesses of a party are required to put their affidavits in lieu of chief examination in a bunch, and they cross-examined in a group. The order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law. 9. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision allowed.