MOHINDER SINGH GILL Vs. JAGDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff aggrieved by the dismissal of the application filed by him to direct the second defendant to cross examine the 1st defendant first before ever he cross-examines the 1st defendant preferred the present revision. The plaintiff has contended in the application that there is no conflict of interest inter se the defendants. Therefore, the second defendant has no right to cross-examine the first defendant. But in case the second defendant has proposed to cross-examine the first defendant, let him do so first in order to avoid demolition of cross-examination that would be conducted by the plaintiff.

(2.) The second defendant resisted the above plea of the plaintiff on the ground that the defendants had filed separate and non-identical written statements. The first defendant has filed elaborate written statement raising issues concerning both the plaintiff as well as the second defendant. Therefore, it is only the plaintiff who shall first cross-examine the first defendant before ever second defendant ventures to cross-examine the first defendant.

(3.) The trial Court having relied upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in M/s. Ennen Castings (P) Ltd. v. M.M. Sundaresh and others,2003 3 CCC 526 held that the plaintiff shall cross-examine the first defendant. If there is a conflict of interest between the co-defendants, a defendant would thereafter have an opportunity to cross examine the other defendant. Having thus held the trial Court directed the plaintiff to first cross-examine the first defendant. In case any conflicting version comes out during the course of cross-examination as against the interest of the second defendant, the second defendant would have the right to cross-examine the first defendant.