( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5634 OF 2008 Sakahari s/o Dagdu Tanpure and others. PETITIONERS VERSUS Aba s/o Vithal Tanpure and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. B.S. Shinde, advocate holding for Mr. V.P. Latange, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.C. Garud, advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. None for other respondents. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 5th March, 2010] PER COURT : 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenged order dated 04-08-2008 rendered by Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmednagar on their application (Exh-85) whereby they urged to reject prayer of original defendant No. 8 (respondent No. 6 Arun) for their cross-examination. 2. The petitioners are original defendants No. 4 to 7. The respondents No. 1 and 2 are original ( 2 ) plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 whereas respondents No. 3 to 5 are original defendants No. 1 to 3. The respondents No. 1 and 2 filed suit for partition and separate possession vide Spl. Civil Suit No. 223/2005. The petitioners filed their written statement in the suit. The respondent No. 6 (original defendant No. 8) filed his separate written statement alleging that his father was tenant in respect of one of the agricultural land in dispute bearing Survey No. 41/2B/2. He asserted that the plaintiffs’ father and defendant No. 1 gave the said land to his father on rental basis for cultivation as per agreement dated 14-05-1964 and 18-07-1964. He contended that he has acquired right to purchase the said land. 3. The petitioners averred that the respondent No. 6 be not permitted to cross-examine them. The trial Court rejected their application. 4. Having heard learned counsel and on consideration of the impugned order, it is manifestly clear that there is no perversity committed by the trial Court while rejecting the application of the ( 3 ) petitioners. It is true, no doubt, that ordinarily, a co-defendant may not be allowed to cross-examine another defendant if their interests are not in conflict with each other. However, when a co-defendant has got adverse interest, prima facie, then such cross- examination is permissible. In such a case, cross- examination of the petitioners could be conducted by the original plaintiffs in the first place and thereafter, by the defendant No. 8 i.e. respondent No. 6 herein. The trial Court shall maintain such sequence of cross- examination because of prima facie adverse interest between the petitioners and the respondent No. 6 (defendant No. 8). The case of the defendant No. 8 is that the petitioner No. 1 was a party to the lease transaction and, therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant No. 8 will have no right to cross-examine the petitioners. There is no merit in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp5634-08 ( 4 )