JUDGMENT : P.R. Shivakumar, J. 1. The Plaintiff in the Original Suit in O.S. No. 76 of 2005 pending on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi is the Petitioner in the present Revision. The 6th Defendant in the said Suit is the Respondent herein. The said Suit has been filed for declaration of title and a consequential injunction. During the course of the trial, one Chinnadurai was examined as D.W. 4. He is none other than the son of the 6th Defendant-Muthalammal, the Respondent herein and he was also recognised as the Power Agent of the 6th Defendant. Contending that he could not speak about the facts, which were not within his personal knowledge and he ventured to give evidence regarding the facts known by his principal, the Petitioner/Plaintiff chose to file I.A. No. 363/2011 under Section 151, C.P.C. r/w. Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for the rejection of the evidence of D.W. 4. The learned Trial Judge, after hearing both sides, chose to dismiss the said Petition by Order dated 19.9.2011 and the same is impugned in the present Revision. 2. The arguments advanced by Mr. P. Valliappan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and by Mr. V. Manohar, learned Counsel for the Respondent are heard. Copy of the impugned Order and copies of the other documents produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused. 3. The short point that arises for consideration in this Revision is: "whether the testimony of a person, who figures as a witness can be rejected or struck off on the sole ground that he ventured to depose not only about the facts regarding which he got personal knowledge but also regarding the facts, which he came to know on information? 4. The answer to the said question shall be an emphatic 'No'. What credence can be attached to such part of the evidence pertains to the realm of appreciation of evidence. Though such a Witness would have chosen to speak about the facts, which are not within his direct knowledge, unless and until it is elicited from him that he is speaking about those facts not on personal knowledge but on information, to classify such part of the evidence to be hearsay, we cannot jump to the conclusion that any part of his testimony shall be inadmissible as hearsay evidence. The judicial propriety requires not to scuttle the same at the inception and leave it to the appreciation of the Court after noting the objections raised by the opposite party. In this case, admittedly the Petitioner has raised an objection in respect of certain portions of the testimony of D.W. 4 and the same has also been noted by the Trial Court. In view of the fact that such objections have been raised, it shall be open to the Petitioner to raise the point at the time of advancing arguments to disregard or not to give any credence to those parts of the evidence of D.W. 4. When such a contention is raised, the Trial Court has to consider it on its own merits, without being influenced by the Order, which is impugned in this Revision and also the fact that the said Order is also being confirmed by this Court. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.