Kumar, J

The petitioners have preferred this writ petition challenging the order permitting defendants 3 to 6 to cross-examine PW-1.

2. The first respondent-Vithal is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 53/2005. He filed the suit against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 for a declaration that the decree passed in O.S. No. 550/1975 dated 1.1982 is not binding on him, he is in actual peaceful possession of the property and therefore, he sought for the relief of injunction restraining the petitioners herein from disturbing his possession except in accordance with law.

3. O.S. No. 550/1975 was instituted by Yallubai Monappa Marve for a declaration that she is the owner and to restrain Yamunappa Dundappa Marve from disturbing her lawful possession in respect of the suit schedule property. The said Yamunappa Dundappa Marve filed a suit in O.S. No. 429/1973 against Yallubai and sought an injunction. Both the suits were clubbed together and common trial was conducted. O.S. No. 429/1973 came, to be dismissed. O.S. No. 550/1975 came to be decreed. Yamunappa preferred R.A. No. 17/1982 against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 550/1975.

Appeal came to be dismissed. Yamunappa died. His L.Rs preferred R.S.A. No. 460/1983 against the said judgment and decree. . The appeal came to be dismissed on 17.4.2003. The Special Leave Petition preferred to the Supreme Court came to be rejected. Smt. Yallubai died. Her L.Rs, the petitioners herein filed Execution Petition No. 31/2004.

4. The first respondent in the Suit O.S. No. 53/2005, asserted that he had leased the property in favour of defendants 3 to 6, i.e. respondents 2 to 5 in this Writ Petition. He examined himself as PW1 and he was cross-examined by defendants 1 and 2 who are the petitioners in this Writ Petition. Defendants 3 to 6 in the suit who are respondents 2 to 5 in this Writ Petition wanted to cross-examine PW1. The petitioners opposed the same by filing application-I.A. No. IV contending that since defendants 3 to 6 have conceded the case of the plaintiff and they are colluding with the plaintiff they have no right to cross-examine. The said application was opposed by defendants 3 to 6 by filing counter. The trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioners and permitted defendants 3 to 6 to cross-examine PW1.Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court.

5. The trial Court relying on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of SADHU SINGH vs SANT NARAIN SINGH SEWADAR AND OTHERS] held that, though the averments in the plaint and written statement do not indicate any conflict of interest between the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 6, on the ground that no hardship would be caused to defendants 1 and 2, if defendants 3 to 6 are permitted to cross-examine PW 1, the application of the petitioners was rejected.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Chapter 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act") deals with examination of witnesses. Section 135 of the Act deals with, order of production and examination of witnesses. Section 136 of the Act, states the power of the Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence. Section 137 of the Act, deals with Examination-in-chief, Cross-examination and Re-examination and Section 138 of the Act, deals with the order of examinations. Section 137 defines what a Cross-examination means. According to the said Section, examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination. Section 138 provides that witness shall be first examined-in-chief, if the adverse party so desires, cross-examine, then if the party calling him so desires re-examine.

8. Therefore, the questions for consideration are:- What is cross-examination? What is the purpose of cross-examination and who has the right of cross-examination?

9. What is cross-examination?

Examination of a witness by the adverse party is called the cross-examination. It is the most eff