“Reading of Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, makes it clear that the first step is the examination of a witness by the party who calls him, which is called as examination-in-chief and the next step is cross-examination of a witness already put to examination-in-chief is over, there is scope for reexamination of a witness on being called for by a party subsequent to cross-examination by the party, who had called him. If we look to the provision contained in Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, this provision makes it clear that a witness shall be first examined in chief (then if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if a party calling him so desires) reexamined. A conjoint reading of both the above provisions make it clear that there are three stages of examination of a witness i.e. (1) examination in chief, (2) cross-examination by the adversary party and (3) re-examination by the party, who had called such a witness after the cross-examination and, therefore, there is no scope for additional crossexamination or re-examination by a party, who is not adverse to the person, who has examined any such witnesses. Therefore, not only there is no scope for the defendant no.3 to cross-examine the D.W.1 but there is also no scope for the defendant no.3 being not a adverse party to the Defendant no.1 to re-examine the D.W.1. As the provision of re-examination only entitles a person for reexamination of a witness by whom the witness has been called, this Court finds both the courts have miserably failed to appreciate the above aspect and thus arrived at the wrong and erroneous impugned orders. Both the Courts
