JUDGMENT

L. MOHAPATRA, J. : This writ application is directed against the order dated 1.9.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Athagarh in T.S. No.8 of 1996 rejecting an application filed by defendant No.1 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act praying to allow the said defendant to put leading questions to D.W.4 in form of cross-examination.

2. The suit has been filed for declaration that the sale deed bearing Nos.504 and 505 dated 13.2.1995 executed by opposite parties 5 and 6 in favour of the petitioner is illegal, void and inoperative and also for permanent injunction restraining the present petitioner from coming upon the suit properties described in Schedule 1 and 2, in the alternative to permit plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 to exercise their right of pre-emption as preferential heirs to purchase the shares of opposite parties 5 and 6 described in Schedule-1 and 2 under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act.

3. The petitioner who is defendant No.1 filed the written statement stating therein that he is in possession of the suit schedule land from 22.6.1977 under Bhag Pattas issued by opposite parties 5 and 6 in respect of their shares which they have got under amicable family settlement deed dated 21.06.1977. Thereaf¬ter, he had purchased the suit land under two registered sale deeds which are subject matter of the suit. It is also the case of the defendant No.1-petitioner that after purchase of the suit land, R.O.R. had been corrected in favour of the petitioner in Mutation Case Nos.536 and 537 of 1996. According to the defendant No.1-petitioner, he is the absolute owner of the property having right, title, interest and possession thereof. Apart from above, several other Statements were made in the written statement which are not necessary for the purpose of this case.

4. D.W.4 who is sought to be put leading questions in cross-examination by defendant No.1 is defendant No.3 in the suit. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed a joint written statement opposing the prayer in the suit. According to the said defend¬ants, in paragraph-5 of their written statement the joint family status had been severed prior to 1977 and the plaintiff as well as defendants 2,3, 5 and late Brahmananda Dash were living sepa¬rately much prior to 1977. It is also admitted by the said de¬fendants that on 21.6.1977 there was division of some of the family properties and the plaintiff taking advantage of minority of defendants 2 and 5 as well as absence of defendant No.3 and Brahmananda Dash disposed of 65 acres of land out of the joint family properties in collusion with his widow mother and the mother of defendants 1,2,3,5,6 and 7. It is also the case of the defendants 2 and 3 that the document of division of properties dated 21.6.1977 is not a mutual family settlement deed and there was no division of all the family properties by metes and bounds on 21.6.1977. The division of properties made on 21.6.1977 was a forged document of plaintiff No.1 who forced the defendants 2, 3 and 5 to sign the document. In paragraph-13 of the written state¬ment it is stated that the land marked as ‘A’ in the sketch map of Schedule-3 of the plaint had been allotted to the share of defendant No.2 and the said land was given by defendant No.2 to defendant No.1 to cultivate as a tenant. Since defendant No.2 was a service holder and disable person and defendant No.1 used to pay Bhag dues, defendant No.2 sold his share to defendant No.1 under registered sale deed No.504 dated 13.2.1995 in favour of defendant No.1. In paragraph-17 of the written statement it is also stated that under another registered sale deed No.505 dated 13.2.1995 defendant No. 2 sold the properties therein to defendant No.1.

5. Defendant No.3 was examined as D.W.4 on behalf of the defendant No.1. In course of examination in Court he had admitted to have sold the land to the defendant No.1. However, in cross-examination he stated that he cannot say details of the written statement filed by him and h