P SATISH PAI Vs. B YESWANTH SHENOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are directed against the order, dated 14.12.2005 and dated 20.6.2008 passed by the Court of the XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 15030/04. Both these orders are passed turning down the petitioners' request for permission to cross-examine the co-defendants. W.P. No. 6683/09 is filed by the defendant No. 4 and W.P. No. 9566/08 is filed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 3. To avoid the confusion, the parties are being referred as per their ranks in the Court below.

(2.) Sri Vishwanath, the learned Counsel for the defendant No. 4 submits that there is conflict of interest between the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 on the one hand and the defendant No. 4 on the other. Therefore, the defendant No. 4 is to be given an opportunity to cross-examine the defendant No. 1. He also brings to my notice, the Trial Court's order, dated 14.12.2005 (Annexure-G) in W.P. No. 6683/09 appointing the finger print and thumb impression expert for comparing the thumb marks and signatures found on the receipts with the admitted thumb impressions and signatures. In the said order while allowing the I.A filed by the defendant No. 4, the Trial Court has observed that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 could be given an opportunity to cross-examine the Court Commissioner. He submits that the Trial Court made this observation seeing the possible conflict of interest between the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and the defendant No. 4. Having passed such an order on the 4th defendant's application for the reference of the signature, thumb impression, etc to the expert and reserved the liberty to the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to cross-examine the expert, the Trial Court cannot preclude the defendant No. 4 from cross-examining the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 (defendant No. 1 is examined as DW-1 on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1 to 3).

(3.) Sri Vishwanath also brings to my notice this Court's decision in the case of Ennen Castings Private Limited (in Liquidation) rep. by Official Liquidator, Bangalore v. M.M. Sundaresh and Ors., 2003 ILR(KAR) 3490. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow: