Co-defendants have the right to cross-examine each other's witnesses if the witness’s testimony is adverse to their interests, emphasizing the fundamental fairness in judicial proceedings.

ORDER :

S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.

1. Defendant No.1 is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 17.01.2024 passed on I.A.Nos.61 to 63 in O.S.No.5533 of 2015 by the Court of XLII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City vide Annexure-A.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Suit in O.S.No.5533 of 2015 is filed before the jurisdictional civil Court, Bengaluru by respondent no.1 herein seeking the relief of separate possession, directing defendant nos.2 to 15 to execute a rectification deed correcting the mistake crept in the registered sale deed dated 09.11.1994 with regard to boundaries of the suit schedule property, to declare that plaintiff is the absolute owner of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, direct defendant no.1 to deliver possession of the suit property by demolishing illegal construction put up by him on the same and consequently grant decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant no.1 from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property. The contesting defendants have filed written statement and have opposed the suit claim. The Commissioner of Bengaluru Development Authority ('BDA' for short) is arraigned as defendant no.16 in the suit. Written statement on behalf of defendant no.16 was also filed in the said suit. During the course of trial one B. Sreenivas S/o Basappa, Deputy Director of Town Planning, BDA had examined himself as DW.2. After he was cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff, I.A.Nos.61 to 63 were filed on behalf of defendant no.1 seeking to reopen the case and to recall DW2 for his further cross-examination. The said applications were heard and rejected by the trial Court vide the order impugned. Aggrieved by the same, defendant no.1 is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that during the course of cross-examination of DW.2 by the plaintiff, he has made certain admissions which are adverse to the interest of defendant no.1. Therefore, it is necessary to permit defendant no.1 to cross-examine DW.2. He submits that though in the written statement which was filed by Joint Director of BDA, the claim of plaintiff was denied in entirety, DW.2 who is the Deputy Director of Town Planning, BDA has made certain admissions contrary to the stand taken in the written statement. It is under these circumstances, I.A.Nos.61 to 63 were filed on behalf of defendant no.1. He submits that the trial Court has erred in rejecting the said applications. In support of this arguments, he has placed reliance on the following judgments:-

1. SRI MOHAMED ZIAULLA V. MRS. SORGRA BEGUM AND ANR - ILR 1997 KAR 1378

2. P SATISH PAI V. B YESHWANTH SHENOY & ORS - ILR 2010 4022

3. VINOD V. MULJIBHAI S/O MAUJIBHAI PATEL & OTHERS - CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.249 OF 2011 DECIDED ON 25.6.2013

4. SOHANLAL & ORS V. GULAB CHAND -

5. PATNA VENKATA SREERAMULU V DALLI APPALAREDDY - 2022 SUPREME(AP) 717

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 who has argued in support of the impugned order submits that only if the co-defendant pleads adverse to the interest of another defendant he gets a right to cross-examine co- defendant. In the evidence of DW.2, nothing adverse to the c- defendant is stated during his examination-in-chief. If the co- defendant is now permitted to cross-examine DW.2, it would result in permitting him to water down the admissions elicited by plaintiff in the cross-examination of DW.2. The trial Court was therefore, justified in rejecting I.A.Nos.61 to 63. In support of his arguments he has placed reliance on the following judgments:-

1. SAROJI BALA V. DHANPATI DEVI - 2003 AIR KAR 293

2. SATYAM V. PUTHAPALLIPURAM -CRP NO.219 OF 2016 KER HC

3.CHINNAIAH V. VALLIAMMAL & OTHERS- 2023 SUPREME(MAD) 1812

4. SUJITKUMAR V. INDRABAI IN W.P.NO.104160/