The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the order of cross-examination in a civil suit based on the support or opposition to the plaintiff's case, as outlined in Order 18 Rule 1 & 2 CPC and relevant case law.

ORDERORDER

Lisa Gill, J. - Petitioners/plaintiffs seek setting aside of order dated 05.03.2020 (Annexure P-4), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Amritsar, whereby petitioners have been directed to cross-examine DW9-Kanav Khanna prior to cross-examination by the other defendants.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are that petitioners herein have filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Petitioners seek a declaration to the effect that they are owners of the suit property as described in the plaint by virtue of two registered sale deeds and on the basis of mutations sanctioned thereafter. It is pleaded that the property in question had been purchased by plaintiffs from one Smt.Usha. Defendants/respondents no.2 to 4 are pleaded to be tenants in the suit property, the tenancy being created by Purshottam Dass as proprietor of M/s. Ravi Dyeing and Printing and Finishing Works. After death of Purshottam Dass, Smt. Usha is stated to have inherited the property and become its lawful owner.

3. Written statement on behalf of defendant no.1 Avinash Mohindru and defendant no.5 Sudarshan Sewa Trust through its Chairman Avinash Mohindru was filed, taking a specific stand that Purshottam Dass had donated the property in question to the defendant-Trust and that Smt. Usha had no right to transfer the property. It is further pleaded that a portion of the property was under tenancy of defendants no.2 to 4 and that these defendants are instrumental in institution of the suit against the Trust. Defendant no.2 is stated to be in huge arrears of rent and stated to have contemplated grabbing the property by approaching Smt. Usha daughter of Purshottam Dass and a conspiracy was hatched, thereby Madan Arora, father of Kanav Khanna (DW9) was appointed attorney of Smt. Usha Bhatia. Mutation of the land is alleged to have been secured in favour of Smt. Usha Bhatia and property sold by use of fictitious and collusive sale deeds.

4. Defendants no.2 to 4 in their separate written statement have taken a stand that they are tenants in the suit property. Tenancy had been created by Purshottam Dass as proprietor of M/s. Ravi Dyeing, Printing and Finishing Works and that the answering defendants have no other option except to treat Smt. Usha as the owner of the property. Allegations of defendant no.1 trying to interfere in the peaceful possession of the tenants has been raised and it is stated that the said defendants started paying rent to the plaintiffs from December 2008 onwards.

5. Controversy in the present case revolves around the question as to whether it is the plaintiffs, who have to cross-examine DW9-Kanav Khanna first or the co-defendants. There is no dispute regarding right of the co-defendants to cross-examine the said witness as a stand opposing that of the co-defendants has been taken. The plaintiffs had sought a direction to the co-defendants to first cross-examine the said witness and thereafter the plaintiffs sought liberty to cross-examine. Learned trial Court directed that in the given facts and circumstances, interest of the plaintiffs and defendants no.2 to 4 is similar and against the interest of defendants no.1 and 5, thus plaintiffs were directed to cross-examine DW9 first and thereafter opportunity would be provided to defendants no.1 & 5 to cross-examine the said witness. Aggrieved therefrom, this revision petition has been filed by the plaintiffs.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that learned trial Court has wrongly observed that interest of the plaintiffs and defendant no.2 to 4 is the same. It is submitted that an incorrect interpretation of order 18 Rule 1 CPC has been made by the learned trial Court. Grave injustice, it is submitted, shall be caused to the plaintiffs, in case, defendants no.1 and 5 are not directed to cross-examine the said witness first. It is submitted that burden of proving that defendants no.2 to 4 are tenants of defendant no.5, lies up