Kartar Singh vs Thakur Singh and Others

M.M. Kumar, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.3.2002 allowing the cross examination by one co-defendant of another co-defendant to the extent of their clash of interest. The order of the Civil Judge reads as under:

"I have perused the file and have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and I am of the view that the defendants are entitled to cross examine the co-defendants to the extent of their clash of interest. However, if at the appropriate stage, it is found that both the defendants were in fact colluding, the same can be appreciated by the Court at the appropriate stage and denial to cross examine will lead to more harm than to allow them to cross examine, As such, counsel for Vikram Soni Shri S. R., Wadhera, Adv. is allowed to cross examine the co-defendants."

Shri H,S. Bhullar, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has argued that the impugned order contravenes the provisions of Sections 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity ''the Act'') because once the co-defendant had filed the written statement without contradicting the stand taken by them, the cross examination of the defendant is not permissible. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Sadhu Singh Vs. Narain Singh Sewadar and Others, He has also relied upon another judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Chand v. Smt. Hart Devi and Ors. 1987(1) R.L.R. 257 where judgment in Sadhu Singh''s case (supra) was also relied upon.

After hearing the learned counsel, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge is in consonance with the provisions of Section 137 and 138 of the Act and the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel. The Civil Judge is conscious of the fact that cross examination is to be allowed only to the extent of clash of interest of the co-defendant. It has also been taken care of that if at later stage the Court finds that defendants were colluding, the same would be appreciated by the Court at the appropriate stage.

In view of the above, the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed.