Back
1977 Supreme(AP) 52
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : LAKSHMAIAH
Karumanchi Subba Rao - Appellant
Versus
Yarlagadda Venkatappaiah - Respondent
Decided On : 02-21-77
A defendant who filed a written statement stating that the suit instituted by the petitioner-plaintiff can be decreed as prayed for has no right to cross-examine the plaintiff.
Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 137 - CROSS-EXAMINATION - RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE - ADVERSE INTEREST - DEFENDANTS FILING WRITTEN STATEMENT STATING THAT SUIT MAY BE DECREED AS PRAYED FOR BY PLAINTIFF - NO RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE PLAINTIFF.
Fact of the Case:
Defendants 3, 4, and 7 filed a written statement in a suit, stating that the accounts of the plaintiff were maintained properly and that the suit may be decreed in favor of the plaintiff as prayed for. The plaintiff filed a revision petition challenging the order of the lower court allowing the defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that defendants 3, 4, and 7 had no right to cross-examine the plaintiff because they did not have an interest adverse to that of the plaintiff. The court further held that permitting the defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff would cause otherwise avoidable harassment to the plaintiff.
Issues: Whether a defendant who filed a written statement stating that the suit instituted by the petitioner-plaintiff can be decreed as prayed for has got any right to cross-examine the plaintiff?
Ratio Decidendi: The right to cross-examine a witness is conferred by statute only on a person who has an interest adverse to that of the person who is proposed to be cross-examined. The purpose of cross-examination is to test the veracity of the testimony of the witness. When the plaintiff and the defendants are sailing together in the sense that the defendants requested the court to decree the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for by him and in view of the further fact that the defendants specifically stated in their written statement that the accounts were maintained properly by the plaintiff, the defendants cannot be said to have any interest that can be characterized even remotely as adverse to that of the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the order of the lower court allowing the defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff was set aside.
( 2 ) THIS revision under section 115, Civil procedure Code by the plaintiff is directed against the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bapatla in I. A. No. 270 of 1976 in O. S. No. 56 of 1970, dated 15th April, 1976.
( 3 ) O. S. No. 56 of 1970 was instituted by the petitioner before the Court below for a declaration that the debt due by the plaintiff to the first defendant was partially discharged. Paragraph 9 of the plaint mentions about the relief and reads thus:"therefore the plaintiff prays that the court may be pleased to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff against the 1st defendant; (i) for declaration that the debt due by the plaintiff to 1st defendant under promissory note dated 9th December, 1969 was discharged to the extent of rs. 7,315. 41 or with alternative. (1) for payment of Rs. 8,023. 00 by the 1st defendant. (2) for payment of interest thereon at 12% p. a. (3) for costs of this suit and; (4) for such other and further reliefs as Hon ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case". The plaint averments are to the effect that the plaintiff and the defendants constituted themselves as partners of the firm styled as "sri Satyanarayana Rice Mill contractors: Karumanchi Brahmayya and Company, Bapatla (Reg.)" for carrying on rice mill business, selling paddy etc. Defendants 2 to 8 are partners in the firm. Defendants 2 to 8 including defendants 3, 4 and 7 filed a written statement wherein they have stated in paragraph 4 thus:"the account filed by the plaintiff into court in this suit are true accounts of the partnership". In paragraph 5 of the written statement it is further stated thus:"therefore this defendant pray that the Court may be pleased to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff against 1st defendant as prayed for and award costs of the suit to the defendants against 1st defedndant". Defendants 3, 4 and 7 filed I. A. No. 270 of 1976 in O. S. No. 56 of 1970 under section 151, Civil Procedure Code, requesting the Court to permit them to cross-examine the plaintiff who was examined as P. W. 14. The third defendant gave the affidavit contending that the plaintiff filed the suit against all the partners including themselves and that they signed all the account books previously believing the plaintiff that he was properly shown the accounts. But during the cross-examination of plaintiff by the first defendant it came out that plaintiff did not maintain the accounts properly and the signature of defendants was fraudulently obtained by the plaintiff on the account books. It is under those circumstances, the application giving rise to the above revision was filed by the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff at this stage.
( 4 ) COUNTER was filed by the plaintiff denying the allegations. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that after the plaintiff entered the witness box there arose some ill-feelings between the petitioners and respondent in regard to other matters extraneous to suit and notices were exchanged between the present petitioners and respondents. Due to that ill-feelings to harass the plaintiff, the defendants took up this method,, conspired and colluded with the first defendant and filed I. A. No. 502 of 1975 for filing a different written statement and it was dismissed. Therefore, the plaintiff contended in the counter that the original written statement filed by defendants 2 to 8 accepting the statement of accounts stands as correct and as such they are not entitled to cross-examine the plaintiff at this stage. If they have got any cause of action on the basis of fraud etc. , they can agitate those rights in the suit O. S. No. 1 of 1976 and exercise their rights of cross-examination but they have no right to cross-exam
