AJAY GUPTA Vs. DARBARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case taken up through video conferencing.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiff Ajay Gupta had brought a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dtd. 18/8/1994 entered into between plaintiff and defendant No.l for sale of suit land with consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining defendant No.l to execute the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 on the basis of allegedly forged and fabricated agreement dtd. 13/6/1996, judgment and decree dtd. 15/1/2001 against defendants Darbara Singh and Charan Singh, seeking possession of the suit land.

(3.) On notice, both the defendants appeared and filed written statements. Issues on merits were framed. The plaintiff concluded his evidence and when the case was at the stage of evidence of defendants, defendant No.l Darbara Singh appeared as DW-2 and tendered his affidavit in examination-in-chief, then counsel for defendant No.2 requested that since there was a conflict of interest between defendant No.l and defendant No.2, whereas, there was no such conflict between plaintiff and defendant No.l, so cross-examination of DW-2 be got conducted prior to his cross-examination on behalf of defendant No.2. That request was opposed by counsel for the plaintiff. The trial Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Rupnagar, vide order dtd. 18/12/2019, observed that there appears to be conflict of interest between defendants No.l and 2 with regard to suit property, therefore, defendant No.2 cannot be directed to be cross examined DW-2 prior to cross-examination by plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff was directed to cross-examine DW-2 Darbara Singh, defendant No.l in the suit, prior to cross-examination by defendant No.2.