Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order made in I.A.No.31 of 2011 in O.S.No.188 of 2008 dated 07.04.2011 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai, whereby, the application filed by the respondent herein under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to scrap the evidence of P.W.2 was allowed. Though notice was served on the respondent in this Civil Revision Petition, he has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel and his name is printed in the cause list. 2. The plaintiff in the suit for mandatory injunction is the petitioner before this Court. He filed the said suit seeking for removal of the thatched hut put up by the respondent herein so as to enable him to free ingress and aggress to his property. During the trial of the suit, one Anbarasan, the Village Administrative Officer of Thirumangalam Village was examined as P.W.3 on 18.08.2010. After completion of the examination in chief of the said witness P.W.3 on 18.08.2010, it appears that he was also cross examined by the defendant on the very same day. 3. Thereafter, without filing an application to recall the said witness for the purpose of again examining in chief, the petitioner herein paid batta for examining the said P.W.3 once again. Based on such payment of batta, the Court below has also issued summon to him and thereafter, he appeared before the Court and he was examined in chief once again on 05.01.2011 by the petitioner herein. The said evidence let in by P.W.3 on 05.01.2011 was sought to be scraped by the respondent herein by filing an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to examine the said witness once again in chief, as he had already been cross examined by the Defendant on 18.08.2010 itself. The said application was resisted by the petitioner herein by contending that the said Village Administrative Officer was examined as P.W.3 and the defendant also cross examined him. During the course of his examination, he deposed that the documents which are in his possession could be produced before the Court. Therefore, the petitioner again paid batta for examining P.W.3 once again and on receipt of the summon issued from the Court, he also came and deposed on 05.01.2011. During the course of his examination, he deposed that the documents which are in his possession could be produced before the Court. Therefore, the petitioner again paid batta for examining P.W.3 once again and on receipt of the summon issued from the Court, he also came and deposed on 05.01.2011. It is also stated by the petitioner that the defendant, in fact, took time to cross examine P.W.3 on 05.01.2011 itself. As the evidence of P.W.3 is totally against the case of the defendant, the present application was filed by him. 4. The Court below, after considering the rival submissions of the respective parties, allowed the application on the ground that there was no proper application filed by the petitioner to recall P.W.3 to examine in chief. It was also observed by the Court below that there was no permission of the Court obtained either orally or in writing to recall P.W.3. Therefore, the respondent herein was prejudiced. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records placed before this Court. 6. It appears that P.W.3 viz., the Village Administrative Officer was examined in chief on 18.08.2010 by the petitioner herein as the plaintiff and on the very same day, he was also cross examined by the respondent herein. However, for production of some documents, which were in possession of the said P.W.3, the petitioner paid batta once again to summon the said witness for examining in chief once again. No doubt the petitioner had not made out any formal application seeking permission of the Court to recall the witness to examine him in chief once again. But at the same time, batta paid by the petitioner to summon P.W.3 once again was accepted by the Court and summons was also issued consequent upon the payment of such batta. Thus, it is seen that the issuance of the summon pursuant to the payment of batta by the Court indirectly shows that the petitioner was permitted to examine P.W.3 once again and consequently, the deposition made by the said person on 05.01.2011 cannot be treated as in pursuance to any illegal or irregular procedure. 7. At any event, there is no prejudice caused to the respondent/defendant in view of the fact he is at liberty to cross examine P.W.3 once again in pursuance to chief examination on 05.01.2011. 7. At any event, there is no prejudice caused to the respondent/defendant in view of the fact he is at liberty to cross examine P.W.3 once again in pursuance to chief examination on 05.01.2011. In fact the counter filed by the petitioner also indicates that the respondent had sought for time to cross examine P.W.3 on 05.01.2011. If that being the factual position, I find there is no justification in allowing the application filed by the petitioner by the Court below thereby scrapping the deposition made by P.W.3 on 05.01.2011. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the Court below is set aside. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. It is needless to say that the respondent/ defendant is entitled to cross examine P.W.3 in pursuance to his deposition made on 05.01.2011.