2012 Supreme(P&H) 1504
M.JEYAPAUL
MOHINDER SINGH GILL – Appellant
Versus
JAGDEEP SINGH – Respondent
Advocates Appeared:
MR.B.R. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.
MR. KULDEEP SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.
MR. G.S. BHATIA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2.
MS. SONIA SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3.
Judgement Key Points
- The plaintiff filed a revision petition aggrieved by the trial court's dismissal of his application to direct the second defendant to cross-examine the first defendant before the plaintiff does so. [23000529850001]
- The plaintiff contended there was no conflict of interest between the defendants, so the second defendant had no right to cross-examine the first defendant, or if permitted, should do so first to avoid prejudicing the plaintiff's cross-examination. [23000529850001][23000529850004]
- The second defendant opposed, noting separate written statements with the first defendant's statement raising issues against both plaintiff and second defendant, arguing plaintiff should cross-examine first. [23000529850002]
- The trial court relied on prior precedent to direct plaintiff to cross-examine first, allowing second defendant to cross-examine thereafter if conflicting interests emerged during plaintiff's cross-examination. [23000529850003]
- Defendants argued plaintiff should cross-examine first, with second defendant getting opportunity only if conflicting interests surface. [23000529850005]
- A defendant has right to cross-examine co-defendant only if co-defendant sets up clashing or adverse interests or statements. [23000529850007][23000529850008][23000529850009][23000529850010]
- In this case, first and second defendants had no adverse interests and jointly opposed plaintiff; second defendant can cross-examine first defendant only if adverse statement made in chief-examination. [23000529850011][23000529850015]
- Allowing second defendant to cross-examine after plaintiff risks derailing plaintiff's cross-examination through leading questions. [23000529850011]
- Where no conflict exists, co-defendant supporting another should cross-examine first if adverse statement in chief, before plaintiff. [23000529850012][23000529850013]
- Trial court's reliance on precedent misplaced as no initial conflict; second defendant has no automatic right absent adverse chief-examination statement. [23000529850014][23000529850015]
- Revision allowed: trial court to permit second defendant to cross-examine first defendant first if adverse statement in chief-examination, then plaintiff; does not affect re-examination rights. [23000529850016][23000529850017][23000529850018]
- Main legal principle: defendant right to cross-examine co-defendant only with conflicting interests or adverse statements. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
M. JEYAPAUL, J.
1. The plaintiff aggrieved by the dismissal of the application filed by him to direct the second defendant to cross examine the 1st defendant first before ever he cross-examines the 1st defendant preferred the present revision.
2. The plaintiff has contended in the application that there is no conflict of interest inter se the defendants. Therefore, the second defendant has no right to cross-examine the first defendant. But in case the second defendant has proposed to cross-examine the first defendant, let him do so first in order to avoid demolition of cross-examination that would be conducted by the plaintiff.
3. The second defendant resisted the above plea of the plaintiff on the ground that the defendants had filed separate and non-identical written statements. The first defendant has filed elaborate written statement raising issues concerning both the plaintiff as well as the second defendant. Therefore, it is only the plaintiff who shall first cross-examine the first defendant before ever second defendant ventures to cross-examine the first defendant.
4. The trial Court having relied upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in M/s Ennen Castings (P)
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
