( 1 ) C. A. No. 423/1998 is filed under Section 543 (1) of the Companies Act, 1956 for a direction to the respondents who are all the Directors of the Company under liquidation to pay the Company a sum of Rs. 6,88,311. 80 along with interest.

( 2 ) THE respondents have filed their statement of objections denying the liability. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Commissioner to record the evidence. Accordingly, the Commissioner recorded the evidence of the Official Liquidator and thereafter the case was set down for the evidence of the respondents. Sri. M. M. Sundaresh, the first respondent in C. A. No. 423/1998 was examined on 21-1-2003. Respondents 7 and 6 requested the Commissioner to permit them to cross-examine the said M. M. Sundaresh and also requested for cross-examination of respondents 4 and 5 in the event of they being examined. The said request of the respondents 7 and 6 was opposed by respondents 1, 4, and 5 contending that a co-respondent has no right to cross-examine the other respondent. Under those circumstances, the Commissioner called upon the respondents 7 and 6 to approach this Court and get the necessary permission to cross-examine. Accordingly, respondents 7 and 6 have filed an application in C. A. No. 110/2003 seeking permission to cross-examine RW1 and other respondents if they are examined in C. A. No. 423/1998.

( 3 ) IN the application it is contended by the applicants that soon after their retirement as Directors of the Company, the Company was taken over by respondents 1, 4 and 5 who are all the members of the same family and after taking over the Company, they have manipulated the accounts of the Company to the detriment of respondents 7 and 6. Therefore, it was contended that the interest of respondents 7 and 6 is in direct conflict with respondents 1, 4 and 5 in these proceedings, as they have made false allegations which would affect the interest of respondents 7 and 6. In the enquiry they should have the liberty to cross-examine the respondents 1, 4 and 5 to expose the falsity of the statement and to place the truth before the Court.

( 4 ) THE application is opposed by respondents 1, 4 and 5. The sum and substance of their objection is that one co-respondent cannot be permitted to cross-examine the other respondent and of course they have denied all the allegations made by the respondents 7 and 6 in the application.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondents 6 and 7 submits that when respondent No. 1 has given the evidence accusing the respondents 7 and 6 and that evidence is against the interest of respondents 7 and 6, they have a right to cross-examine them not withstanding the fact that they have been arrayed as respondents in the proceedings.

( 6 ) PER contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1, 4 and 5 contends that in law a co-respondent has no such right.

( 7 ) THEREFORE the short question that arises for my consideration is whether a co-respondent can cross-examine the other respondent, who has given evidence against him.

( 8 ) THE essence of cross-examination is that it is the interrogation by the Advocate of one party of a witness called by his adversary with the object either to obtain from such witness admissions favourable to his cause or to discredit him. Cross-examination is the most effective of all means for extracting truth and exposing falsehood. The object is to impeach the accuracy, credibility and general value of the evidence given in chief to sift the facts already stated by the witness to detect and expose discrepancies or to elicit suppressed facts which will support the case of the cross-examination party. The exercise of his right is justly regarded as one of the most efficacious tests, which the law has devised for the discovery of truth. It is beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth. The right of cross-examination belongs to an adverse party and parties who do not hold that posi