Y SYAMALAMMA Vs. KAMALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, refusal of the lower Court to permit the petitioner-plaintiff to cross-examine her own witness P.W.3 under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act is the controversy which has fallen for consideration before this Court.

(2.) Petitioner instituted a suit in O.S.No.98 of 1988 for permanent injunction against the respondent basing on a registered sale deed dated 27-5-1988 stated to have been executed by one Venkatachalapathi. Issues were also framed in the said suit on 5-7-1989. The defendant in the said suit has also filed a separate suit O.S.No. 117 of 1988, against the said Venkatachalapathi and the petitioner herein who have figured as defendants 1 and 2 respectively, for specific performance basing on the suit agreement dated 22-3-1981 executed by said Venkatachalapathi in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No. 117of 1988.

(3.) Since the subject matter of suit property in both suits is one and the same, a joint memo was filed for trial of these two suits j ointly which was ordered by the lower Court. Trial was commenced and the evidence was being recorded in O.S.No.98 of!988.