^.(3^.&? 2,-3T"S' P.B.'?«••-•"•- p,e8«*WTn siated. IN THE HON'BLE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ® SiNfiLE PETITIONERS (DefendantNo.l) (Defendant No.4) (Defendant No.6) (Defendant No. 7) RESPONDENTS (Plaintiff) (Defendant no.2) W.P.227-3&-?—/10 TaTv^uZ— /^&^? 1. Smt. -fsessu- Thakur W/o Narendra •i"-j~>i" Singh Thakur Age 41 years R/o Sanjay Market Indira Ward Jagadalpur Distt-Bastar (C.G.) 2. Shambhu Nath Singh Thakur S/o , Sampat Singh age 71 years R/o Ramaiyya Para Jagadlapur Distt- Bastar (C.G.) 3. Ku. Kumud D/o Narendra Singh Thakur Age 18 years Now Aged about -21 years -Caste Dhakad R/o Sanjay Market Indira Ward , Jagadalpur Distt-Bastar (C.G.). 4. Ku. Bharati S/o Narendra Singh Thakur age 1 6 years Minor (through guardian & natural father Narendra Singh Thakur S/o Mahadev Singh Thakur Age 51 years ) now aged about 19 years (major ) R/o Sanjay Market Indira Ward , Jagadalpur Distt-Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS ^l'f^t- ^T^^ 1. Kamendra Stgfe-S/o Narendra Sigh j"y^i Thakur age 19 years) R/o Sanjay Market Indira Ward , Jagadalpur Distt-Bastar (C.G.) 2. Smt Neelima Thakur W/o Fakir Mohan Singh Age 45 years R/o Ramaiyya Para Jagadalpur Distt- Bastar (C.G.) /' -") (Defendant no.3) Udai Bhan Singh Thakur S/o Sampat Smgh age 69 years R/a Ramaiyya Para Jagadalpur Distt-Bastar (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bastar , Jagadalpur Distt- Bastar (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI /MANDAMUS /ORDER/ DIRECTION ETC. . -a HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR Writ Petition f227) No. 3052 of2010 PETITIONERS RE8PONDENTS Smt. Taruni Thakur & others VERSUS : Kamendra Singh & others WRTT PETTnON UNDER ARTtCLE 227 OF THE CONSTTTUTIQNLCFJNraA (SB: Hon'Ue Mr. N.K. Aj^rwal, J.) Present ; Shri Uttam Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Vishwauath Goswami, Advoeate for respondentNo. 1. Shri Sourabh Sharma with ShriSudip Agrawal, Advocates for respondentNo. 2. Ms. Sangeeto Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDES (Passed on 21.02.2011) 1. LegaUty and propriety of order dated 22.04.2010, passed by IVth Civil Judge, Class II, Jagdalpur, in Civil Suit No. 3-A/09 is under assail in the instant petition. 2. The claim of the plaintifif was admitted by the petitioners/defendants, The defendant No, 2 denied the claim put-forth by the plaintififand thns she is a contesting defendant. The petitioners were not allowed.by the trial court to cross examine witnesses produced by the deftndant No. 2 vide order impugned. Hence this petition. 3. Shri Uttam Pandey, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioneTs would submit : eontents of aflEidavit filed by the respondent No, 2 are adverse to the interest of the petitioners, -~ and therefore, it was necessary for the petitioners to cross ^ ^ 7-9 + •S t .<•• (Tl examine her and the same has been illegally disallowed by the trial court. 4. On the other hand, Shri Sourabh Shanna, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 would submit: there is no conflict of interest between the petitioners and respondents/ plaintiffs, and therefore, the trial court has rightly disallowed them to cross examine witnesses produced by her. 5. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned. 6. Undisputedly, the interest of petitioners is adverse to the interest ofrespondent No. 2. As per Section 138 ofthe Indian Evidence Aet, 1872 (for short 'the Act' 1872'), witoesses shall be first examined-in-chie£then (ifthe adveree party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re- examined. The e?amination and cross e^mination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross esimination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief. 7. The right of cross exammation available to opposite party is valuable and independent right. Section 138 ofthe Act, 1872, allows the right ofcross eiamination ofa witaess to an adverse party, Where the parties arrayed as defendants in a suit have taken contradictory stands on a relevant and material issue, they shall be adversary to each other and are entitled to exercise their right ofcross examination against each other. + ^"SIWBStif^ ..^:,!Si^!.l . .^3.. ^.S& ••-!:''^-r"^ f, '.*-"-?% 1 '•: -'y' ^ ^' .,. t.;:^' KW1' w ^ J 8. Though there is no spectfic provision in the Indian Evidence Act providing for such an opportunity for a defendant- respondent to cross examine a codefendant/co-respondent, however, having regard to the object and scope of cross examination, it is settled law that when allegations are made against the party to the proceedings, before that evidence could be acted upon, that party should have an ample opportunity to cross examine the person who had given the evidence against him. It is only after such an opportunity is given, and witoess is cross examined that evidence becomes admissible. 9. In view of above, in the considered opinion ofthis court, 1fae order impugned dated 22.04.2010 deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The trial court is directed to allow the petitioners to cross examine the witaesses proposed and produced by the defendantNo.2. 10. Accordingly the petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Sahu