CHHAILU RAM Vs. CHANDI RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the suit filed by present respondent No. 1 Chandi Ram, Chhailu Ram petitioner (who had been arrayed as defendants No. 1) filed written statement supporting the plaint allegations. The suit was contested by present respondents Nos. 2 to 4 only. After the case of the plaintiff's evidence, the case was adjourned for defendants' evidence. On two such dates the petitioner did not produce evidence and opportunity was granted to him on payment of costs. On the third date when defendant No. 1 wanted to produce his evidence, an objection was raised on behalf of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 to the effect that as the said defendant had admitted the case of the plaintiff, he was not entitled to lead evidence. The learned trial Court vide impugned order, sustained that objection. Defendant No. 1 has come to this Court in revision.

(2.) I am of the opinion that the petition is liable to be accepted. The case is fully covered by the observations made by this Court in Subhash Chander and others v. Shanti Swaroop and others,1983 PunLR 359 wherein it was remarked :-

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon Hussens asanali Pulavwala v. Sabbirbhai Hasanali Pulavwali and others, 1981 AIR(Guj) 190. The facts of that case are entirely different. In that case the plaintiff was first cross-examined by the defendants who were contesting his claim. After the close of the cross-examination, the defendants, who were supporting the plaintiff, wanted to cross-examination, the plaintiff. When it was brought to the notice of the trial Court that the defendants who were supporting the plaintiff, were not entitled to cross-examine the latter, the Court directed deletion of that portion of the cross examination of the plaintiff which was made by those defendants. In the exercise of its inherent powers against that order, revision was filed but the same was dismissed and it was held that the defendants who were supporting the plaintiff, could not be said to be adverse party and, therefore, had no right to cross-examine him. In that case sections 137, 138, 143 and 155 of Evidence Act were interpreted. It would not be out of place to mention here that even in that case it was not held that a defendant who supports the plaintiff, is not entitled to cross- examine the plaintiff's witness at all. It was remarked :-