VINOD VITTHALBHAI PATEL Vs. SHANTABEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the original defendant No.1 challenging the order below Exh.53 dated 03.08.2015. By the aforesaid order, the application of the defendant No.1 was rejected. This order is under challenge.

(2.) The facts in brief are as under:

(3.) The petitioner, therefore, being defendant No.1 who is the sole opponent on merits filed an application before the trial Court at Exh. 53 praying that in accordance with the judgment of the High Court that after the plaintiff is examined, defendants No. 2 and 3 cross examined the plaintiff and he be permitted to cross examine the plaintiff subsequently. In other words, what he prayed was that after the plaintiff is examined, the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 should cross examine the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 should be called last. Such application was contested by the respondent No.1 - plaintiff and the learned trial Judge observed that on reading Order 18 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, there is no order prescribed in which the witnesses can be examined. The judgment cited by the learned advocate for the petitioner in the case of Hiralal v. M.G.Pathak, reported in 1963 GLR pg 327 , according to the trial Judge would help. According to the learned Judge, if the facts of the case are seen, the plaintiff has only been examined and his evidence is still complete in his examination-in-chief. The question of therefore applying for he being cross-examined first and the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in accordance with the principle of judgment in the case of Hiralal (supra), cited by the applicant is applicable.