High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCR/7457/2014allowed

Mahabir Dutt Sharma And Another v. State Of Punjab And ORS.

2015-01-27Mr. Justice R.P. Nagrath2 pages

VINOD KUMAR 2015.01.29 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR No.7457 of 2014 [ 1 ] *****

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CR No.7457 of 2014 Date of decision:27.01.2015 Mahavir Dutt Sharma and another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents.

***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

The petitioners are aggrieved against the order dated 24.07.2014, allowing counsel for defendant no.2 to cross-examine the witness examined by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs filed the suit for possession. Both the defendants filed a joint written statement. Plaintiff no.1 Mahavir Dutt Sharma was examined as PW1. He was cross-examined by the counsel for defendant no.1 but it is alleged by defendant no.2 that no opportunity was granted to him to cross-examine the said witness resulting into manifest injustice. The learned Court below allowed the application on the ground that defendant no.2 has its independent right to cross-examine the said witness.

VINOD KUMAR 2015.01.29 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR No.7457 of 2014 [ 2 ] ***** Counsel for the petitioners has argued that PW1 was duly cross-examined on behalf of the defendants and even though the representative of defendant no.2 was also present, therefore, defendant no.2 does not have any additional right to cross-examine PW1 especially when both defendants no.1 and 2 had filed a joint written statement. Counsel for the respondents, however, has submitted that both the defendants have their independent right to cross-examine the witness of the plaintiffs.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record.

In the normal circumstances, defendants no.1 and 2 would certainly had individual rights to cross-examine the plaintiffs' witness but once both have filed a joint written statement through the same advocate and the representative of defendant no.2 was present when PW1 was being cross-examined by counsel for defendant no.1, it has no right to ask for re-calling of the said witness for the purpose of his cross-examination. In view thereof, the present revision petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

January 27, 2015 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge