AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision is filed challenging the docket order dated 25.07.2019 in O.S.No.264 of 2013 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Medchal,
Ranga Reddy District.
The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.264 of 2013 filed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 3 from interfering with their
peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property. The suit was coming up for cross-examination of D.W.1/defendant No.3. The counsel for
the defendant No.2 intended to cross-examine D.W.1. The plaintiff’s counsel objected for such cross-examination stating that the defendant
Nos.2 and 3 are sailing in the same boat and they both filed written statements having same contents.
By the impugned order, the Court below overruled the said objection of the plaintiff by holding that the defendant No.3 is a Government authority
i.e. Tahsildar. The defendant No.2 did not choose to file his evidence. Thereafter, the evidence of D.W.1 (defendant No.3) was adduced and he was
also cross-examined by plaintiff’s counsel. In the cross-examination of D.W.1 by the plaintff’s counsel, there are some contradictions against
the defendant No.2, therefore, without cross-examination the interest of the defendant No.2 will be affected. Thus, the plaintiff’s counsel cannot
say that both are sailing in the same boat. The Court has to give change to the defendant No.2 to elicit the truth from D.W.1 (defendant No.3).
Heard both sides.
Mr. S. Manoj, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that there is no conflict of interest between the defendant Nos.2 and 3 and therefore,
permission to cross-examine D.W.1 could not have been given to the defendant No.2. The same is contrary to Section 137 of the Indian Evidence
Act.
Per contra, Mr. Venkatesh Deshpane, learned counsel representing Mr. T. Surya Kiran, learned counsel for the respondents, has drawn attention
of this Court to the statement given by the D.W.1 in the cross-examination. Learned counsel pointed out that the statements given by D.W.1
contradict his pleadings in the written statement. In fact, D.W.1 took reversal stand and spoke in favour of the plaintiff in the cross-examination apart
from stating that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. D.W.1 also stated that the document filed by the defendant No.2 is a
created one. Thus, the contention of the petitioner is without any force and there is a clear case of conflict between the defendant No.2 and defendant
No.3 (D.W.1).
Perused the record, the written statement and cross-examination of D.W.1. It is clear from the contents of the cross-examination and as pointed by
the learned counsel for the respondent, D.W.1 (defendant No.3) spoke contrary to his pleadings in the written statement. Thus, the order passed by
the Court below does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. There are no merits in the revision.
The civil revision petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.