Subsequent purchasers have the right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses and produce evidence, as they have stepped into the shoes of the original defendant. The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 do not debar the subsequent vendee from contesting the suit and availing the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and produce evidence.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - The plaintiff through her legal representative, assails the correctness of the order passed by the trial court, while rejecting her application to debar defendant No. 3 to 6 from cross examining the plaintiff.

2. In the considered view of this Bench, a short but interesting question arises for consideration, which is as follows:-

'Whether a lis pendente vendee can be debarred from cross examining the plaintiff's witnesses, particularly, when the original defendant/owner (who entered into an agreement to sell) does not choose to contest the suit for grant of decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell. "

3. Some peculiar facts are required to be noticed. Smt. Chinder Kaur was the owner of shop-cum-flat bearing No. 8, plot D, Model Town, Extension Part II, Ludhiana. It is claimed by the plaintiff that she appointed one person named Sh. Rajkumar Sharma as her General Power of Attorney, who in turn entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff, for a total sale consideration of Rs.10,75,000/-. Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma, General Power of Attoreny of Smt. Chinder Kaur informed her and also executed a Special Power of Attorney in favour of Manjit Singh s/o Hazur Singh. Complaining non-performance of the agreement to sell, the plaintiff filed the suit for the grant of decree of specific performance of agreement to sell. Smt. Chinder Kaur chose not to contest the suit whereas defendant No. 3 to 6 were impleaded as defendants.

4. After completion of the pleadings, the issues were framed. When the case was fixed for plaintiff's evidence, he examined Balbir Singh as PW1. The court granted opportunity to defendant No. 3 to 6 to cross-examine the witness. An application was filed by the plaintiff for not permitting defendant No. 3 to 6, to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the plaintiff. The trial court dismissed the application vide order dated 24th January, 2022 which has been questioned in the present revision petition.

5. Heard learned senior counsel representing the petitioner at length and with his able assistance perused the paper book. Learned senior counsel contends that defendants are lis pendente purchasers of the suit property. Therefore, they have only stepped into the shoes of the first defendant. While relying upon the judgment passed in AIR 1997 SC 3720, the learned senior counsel contends that subsequent purchaser does not get any right to lead evidence or cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses. He also relies upon the judgment passed in Jaswinder Singh versus Sohan Singh and others 2005 (1) PLR 593 and the judgment passed in Sukhdev Singh and others versus Mohan Singh and others 2011 (4)PLR 95.

6. Before this Bench proceeds to analyse the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel representing the parties, it would be appropriate to reckon with the basic provisions of law. Section 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, falls in Chapter X of the Indian Evidence Act,1872. The expressions 'examination-in-chief, 'cross-examination' and 're-examination' are defined in Section 137 whereas Section 138 lays down the manner in which examination-in-chief, 'cross-examination' and 're-examination is required to be recorded. When a witness is produced, firstly he shall be examined in-chief and thereafter he shall be cross-examined by the adverse party i.e. the party other than the one who summoned the witness and thereafter, if required, the party, who called the witness, shall be permitted to re-examine the witness for the explanation of the matters arising in the cross-examination. Section 138 provides that witness shall be first examined in-chief, then if the adverse party so desires, be cross-examined, then if the party calling him so desires, re-examine him. Section 137 and 138 are produced as under.

137. Examination-in-chief.-The examination of a witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief.

Cross-examination.-The examination of a witness by the ad