The present revision is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari, dated 9.3.2006 made in O.S. No. 4 of 2005.

2. The fourth defendant in the said suit in O.S. No. 4 of 2005 is the petitioner herein. The plaintiff is the first respondent and defendants 1 to 3 and 5 to 11 are respondents 2 to 11 in this revision.

3. The second respondent herein had filed a suit in O.S. No. 7 of 2006 before the Sub Court, Sankari, against the first respondent herein and one Jayalakshmi for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the first item of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering or disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the first item of the suit property and to pass a preliminary decree by directing the defendants to divide the second item of the suit property and the family debts into six equal shares and allot four such shares of landed property and family debts to the plaintiff and to direct the defendants to pay the family debts as according to their 2/6th share and for other incidental reliefs. Likewise, the first respondent and the said Jayalakshmi had filed a suit in O.S. No. 4 of 2005 against the second respondent herein and other respondents including the petitioner herein, being the fourth defendant in the said suit, for partition and separate possession of the suit property and for other incidental reliefs. Both the suits have been jointly tried together. The second respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 7 of 2006 and who happens to be the first defendant in O.S. No. 4 of 2005, was examined as P.W.1. A request has been made on behalf of defendants 2, 3 and 4 in O.S. No. 4 of 2005 for cross examination of P.W.1. The said request has been turned down by the Court below and the present revision has been filed by the fourth defendant alone in O.S. No. 4 of 2005.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is nothing wrong in cross examining P.W.1 on behalf of the fourth defendant, the petitioner herein. Ms. Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent/first plaintiff in O.S. No. 4 of 2005, opposed the same on the ground that the fourth defendant, the petitioner herein is not an adverse party and the right for cross examination can be permitted only at the instance of the adverse party.

5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner claims right through P.W.1. P.W.1 has filed a suit in O.S. No. 7 of 2006 against the first respondent herein and one Jayalakshmi for the reliefs set out earlier. The said Saraswathi and Jayalakshmi have filed a suit in O.S. No. 4 of 2005 for the reliefs set out earlier. In the written statement, the petitioner herein being the fourth defendant in O.S. No. 4 of 2005, sides the case of P.W.1, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 7 of 2006. Nothing adverse has been stated by her in her written statement against P.W.1. If it is so, the question of cross examination of P.W.1 at the instance of the fourth defendant, the petitioner herein does not arise in any manner. This view has been taken in a decision Hussens Hasanali v. Sabbirbhai Hasanali AIR 1981 Guj. 190. Para 7 of the said judgment can be usefully extracted here under:

“In view of the above pronouncements of the Supreme Court, it is obvious that this Court will not be entitled to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code unless it is shown that the trial Court has committed a jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. Now, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge is, in the circumstances of the case, just and proper because defendants Nos. 4 and 5 not being adverse parties had no right to cross examine the plaintiff. To redress a wrong, in the absence of any provision to the contrary in Code, the Court had in