REHANA NASREEN GUNDU Vs. MOHAMMED SANAULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subsequently impleaded Defendant Nos.3 and 4 in the suit of the contesting respondent No.1 in O.S. No.9094/2013, inter alia, for a decree of specific performance are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 27.05.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A whereby their right to cross-examine PW.1 has been materially restricted on the ground that they are subsequent purchasers of the subject property. The contesting respondent-plaintiff having entered Caveat through his counsel Sri P.S.Rajendra, resist the Writ Petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the right of the subsequent purchasers to cross-examine the witnesses is coextensive with that of the party to the suit from whom they have derived the title and therefore, in a suit for specific performance, what all is available as a defence to their vendors/sellers does avail to them too and therefore, the impugned order that forecloses their right to cross-examine plaintiff's witness needs to be set at naught. In support of his argument, he banks upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LIMITED vs. NANAK BUILDERS AND INVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS, (2013) 5 SCC 397. So arguing, he seeks allowing of the writ petition.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the Caveator/respondent submits that the impugned order cannot be faltered inasmuch as, the right of subsequent purchasers to cross-examine plaintiff's witnesses is coterminous with that of their vendors, from whose behalf already cross-examination has been done; acceding to the request of the petitioner could amount to virtually reopening the case for further cross-examination of PW1 that too for contradicting or in variance with what has already been done from the side of their vendors; so arguing, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.