SUDHIR TRADING CO Vs. MANGLANI INVESTMENT P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 2. 7. 2008 of the learned ARC dismissing its application under Section 151 CPC for cross examination of Mr. Vinod Kr. Mehta/respondent No. 2 herein (Respondent no. 1 before the Trial Court ). The petitioner in its application had contended that the respondent no. 1, who was tenant/respondent in the eviction petition entered into a collusion with the landlord (Respondent No. 1 herein) and made a statement in the Court convenient to the landlord and contrary to his pleadings. Respondent no. 1/mr. Vinod Kumar Mehta should be allowed to be cross examine on behalf of respondent no. 2 (petitioner herein ).

(2.) IT is submitted that on the day when respondent no. 1/mr. Vinod kumar Mehta was examined in the Court, the advocates were on strike. They were on strike from January, 06 to May, 06 and for this reason respondent no. 2 (petitioner herein) could not come to know about the statement of respondent no. 1 and without cross examination of respondent no. 1, leading of evidence by respondent no. 2 would not be in the interest of justice. Therefore respondent no. 2 should be allowed to cross examine respondent no. 1. The application was contested by the landlord, who stated that there was no collusion between the landlord and respondent no. 1, as is evident from the stand taken by the landlord on the date when statement was made and landlord refused to accept the keys of the premises in the Court.

(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner relied on Mohamed Ziaulla v. Mrs. Sorgra Begum and Ors. 1997 AIHC 2628 where the Karnataka High Court has held that if there was no conflict of interest between the co-defendants, the witness of one defendant should be allowed to be cross examined by the other defendant.