JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. D. Haloi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The order dated 06-11-2017 passed by the court of Munsiff No. 1, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Title Suit No. 78/2010 allowing the application filed by the respondent with a prayer to direct the petitioner/ defendant to limit the cross-examination of the PW-1 only to the new evidence brought on record after the amendment of the plaint and the additional issue framed thereon, is under challenge in the present revision petition. 3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the respondent as plaintiff had instituted Title Suit No. 78/2010 against the petitioner as defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the plaint was amended twice. After the amendment of the plaint for the second time the respondent had filed his additional written statement. Thereafter, an additional issue was framed and the parties were permitted to adduce additional evidence. The respondent, who is the plaintiff in the suit, had examined himself as the PW-1 and accordingly, had filed additional evidence-in-chief on affidavit. During cross-examination of the witness PW-1 certain questions were put to the witness by the petitioner’s counsel as a result of which, the respondent had filed a petition No. 2061/2016, inter alia, contending that by putting such questions to the witness, the defendant was making an attempt to reopen the entire case in a manner which is impermissible in the eye of law. The petitioner had filed written objection contending that the witness is bound to answer all legitimate questions put to him during the cross-examination and therefore, restricting the questions to be put to the witness during cross-examination would amount to undue interference with the right of the defendant to cross-examine the witness. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, the learned trial court had passed the impugned order dated 06-11-2017 allowing the application filed by the respondent/ plaintiff. The legality and validity of the said order dated 06-11-2017 is under challenge in the present proceeding. 4. Mr. Haloi submits that during cross-examination of a witness the counsel for the opposite party would be at liberty to pause any question to the witness which is permissible under the law and the learned trial court was not justified in restricting the scope and ambit of the questions that can be put to the witness. 4. Mr. Haloi submits that during cross-examination of a witness the counsel for the opposite party would be at liberty to pause any question to the witness which is permissible under the law and the learned trial court was not justified in restricting the scope and ambit of the questions that can be put to the witness. 5. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has contended that during cross-examination the opposite party cannot be permitted to ask questions which are irrelevant or barred under the law. 6. The learned court below had observed that the defendant had taken the same plea in the additional written statement which were taken in the original written statement and therefore, could not be permitted to put questions to the witness during his cross-examination relating to those plea raised in the original written statement. The relevant portion of the observations recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned order are quoted herein below for ready reference:- “It is observed that the defendant in their amended plaint dated 29-9-14 in para 9 has pleaded that “plaintiff fraudulently got their names mutated in respect of the suit land without obtaining, possession, knowing it, when that they could not acquire any right, title and interest in the suit land.............” And the same plea was taken in their original written statement Para-(9). Therefore, with regard to the plea raised by the defendant that questions put forward to P.W.1 during cross -examination with regard to mutation is not found valid as defendant had already raised the plea in their original written statement and ought to have cross-examined on the same when P.W.1 was cross-examined previously on 05-03-13. Hence, from the above observations, this Court is of the view that the questions which was put by the learned counsel for the defendant are not admissible as now the defendant has to limit/ confine their cross-examination on the newly amended facts and issues framed thereupon. Accordingly, the prayer of plaintiff/ petitioner is accepted, the defendant is hereby directed to cross-examine the P.W. 1 on the plea taken in the amended written statement and the issues framed thereupon, without going into the entire matter where the PW 1 has been previously examined. With the above directions, the case proceeds for cross-examination of P.W.1. Fix – 22/11/17 for further Cross-examination on P.W.1.” 7. With the above directions, the case proceeds for cross-examination of P.W.1. Fix – 22/11/17 for further Cross-examination on P.W.1.” 7. From a reading of the operative part of the impugned order, it is apparent that the learned trial court had restrained the counsel for the petitioner to put such questions to the witness PW-1 during cross-examination which relates to the pleadings contained in the original written statement. Therefore, the basic questions that would arise for consideration of this Court in the present case is whether the learned court below was correct in restraining the defendant’s counsel from putting questions to the witnesses during cross-examination on the aforesaid ground. 8. In the above context, it would be relevant to mention herein that Chapter-X of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short “Act of 1872”) contains Sections 135 to 166 which deals with the procedure to be adopted in the matter of examination of witnesses. Section 135 lays down the order of production and cross-examination of witnesses. As per Section 136 of the Act of 1872, the Judge is to decide as to admissibility of evidence. The provision of Section 136 would be relevant for the purpose of this case and therefore, is being extracted herein below : “136. Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence.- When either party proposes to give evidence of any fact, the Judge may ask the party proposing to give the evidence in what manner the alleged fact, if proved, would be relevant; and the Judge shall admit the evidence if he thinks that the fact, if proved, would be relevant, and not otherwise. If the fact proposed to be proved is one of which evidence is admissible only upon proof of some other fact, such last-mentioned fact must be proved before evidence is given of the fact first mentioned, unless the party undertakes to give proof of such fact, and the Court is satisfied with such undertaking. If the relevancy of one alleged fact depends upon another alleged fact being first proved, the Judge may, in his discretion, either permit evidence of the first fact to be given before the second fact is proved, or require evidence to be given of the second fact before evidence is given of the first fact.” 9. If the relevancy of one alleged fact depends upon another alleged fact being first proved, the Judge may, in his discretion, either permit evidence of the first fact to be given before the second fact is proved, or require evidence to be given of the second fact before evidence is given of the first fact.” 9. Section 138 of the Act of 1872 lays down the order of examination of witness and as per the proviso to Section 138 the examination and cross-examination of the witness must relate to relevant facts but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief. Section 138 is quoted here-in-below for ready reference : “138. Order of examinations:- Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief. Direction of re-examination.- The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in-re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter.” 10. Section 145 of the Act of 1872 provides that the witness may be cross-examined as to the previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing and relevant to matters in question without such writing being shown to him or being proved. 11. Section 146 of the Evidence Act lays down the questions that would be lawful in cross-examination. Section 146 is extracted herein below for ready reference : “146. Questions lawful in cross-examination.- When a witness is cross-examined, he may, in addition to the questions herein before referred to be asked any questions which tend- (1) to test his veracity. (2) to discover who he is and what is his position in life, or (3) to shake his credit, by injuring his character, although the answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly to criminate him or might expose or tend directly or indirectly to expose him to a penalty or forfeiture.” 12. Besides the above, Chapter-X also contains certain other provisions which prohibits particular types of questions to be put to the witness. Besides the above, Chapter-X also contains certain other provisions which prohibits particular types of questions to be put to the witness. As per Section 151 of the Act of 1872, indecent and scandalous questions may be forbidden by the court unless they relate to facts in issue or to matters necessary to be known in order to determine whether or not the facts in issue exists. That apart, Section 152 of the Act casts a duty upon the court to forbid any question which appears to it to be intended to insult or annoy, or which, though proper in itself, appears to the court to be needlessly offensive in form. 13. Section 5 of the Evidence Act lays down that evidence may be given in a suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every facts in issue and all such other facts that are declared to be relevant in the Evidence Act and of no others. 14. As would be apparent from the discussions above, the various provisions of the Act of 1872 read with Section 136 confers a wide jurisdiction upon the Judge to decide on the question of admissibility of the evidence. Section 136, however, does not indicate as to the stage at which such a question is required to be decided by the Judge. Therefore, going by the scheme of Chapter-X of the Act of 1872, it is evident that the question of admissibility of evidence can be decided either at the stage when the evidence is sought to be introduced or at a later stage as per the discretion of the Judge. What is, however, to be noted herein is that subject to the provisions of the Act of 1872, the question of admissibility of evidence would have to be determined purely on the touchstone of relevancy of facts. 15. In a given case, due the complex nature of the facts in issue, it may become difficult for the Judge recording the evidence to take a decision on the question of relevancy of a particular piece of evidence at the stage when the same is sought to be introduce and in such cases, the Judge would have the option to permit such evidence to be brought on record under objection from the opposite party, leaving the question of admissibility open to be dealt with at a later stage of the proceeding. Admissibility of evidence, it must be remembered, would be subject to the rule of proof and while admitting evidence, it would not be necessary for the Judge to ascertain the probative value of such evidence. The evidential value of a particular piece of evidence is a matter impinging upon the merit of the case and therefore, must be left open to be gone into at the stage of considering the contentious issues on merit. Admissibility of evidence is a question of law. It is also trite law that admissibility and proof of genuineness of facts are two distinct and separate issues [See - Thiruvengadam Pillai Vs. Navaneethammal & Anr. (2008) 4 SCC 530 ]. As such, at the stage of introduction of evidence, the court cannot refuse to admit evidence unless the piece of evidence sought to be tendered by either party to the proceeding is otherwise expressly excluded from the purview of admissibility by operation law. 16. In the case in hand, the learned trail court had allowed the application of the respondent/plaintiff on the ground that the question sought to be put by the defendant’s counsel during the cross-examination of the PW-1 related to issues raised in the original written statement and therefore, were not admissible. The said conclusion of the learned trial court is erroneous for two reasons. Firstly, the statements made in the written statement or additional written statement may have a bearing when it comes to the question of tendering evidence by the defendant but the said aspect would not at all be germane for conducting cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses. In view of Section 138 read with Section 145 of the Act of 1872, it is evident that there is no bar in cross-examining a witness as to any previous statement made by him in writing or reduced in writing nor is there any requirement under the law for the adverse party to conduct cross-examination of witness of the opposite side by confining the same only to the facts deposed in his examination-in-chief. Since, the plaintiff’s witness can be permitted to testify only with regards to the facts pleaded in the plaint or the amended plaint, it is obvious that the right of the adverse party to cross-examine the witness by putting all question which are relevant was unfettered under Section 138 and hence, could not have been restricted by the learned trial court in the present manner. 17. Secondly, for the purpose of Section 138 of the Act of 1872, law does not make any distinction with regard to the procedure to be followed during cross-examination of a witness, be it the first occasion or for recording additional evidence at any subsequent stage. If that be so, it would be open for the adverse party to put all such questions to the witness during cross-examination as may be permissible under the law. Therefore, unless the question was impressible under the law the Judge cannot dis-allow such question merely on the premise that the defendant had failed to put the same question to the witness during his previous cross-examination. For the reasons stated here-in above, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 06-11-2017 is un-sustainable in the eye of law. The same is accordingly set aside. This revision petition stands allowed. Parties to bear their own cost.