1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 6.12.2017 and order dated 11.12.2017 passed in Civil Suit No. 60A/2013 passed by III Civil Judge Class-II Gwalior whereby application preferred at the instance of petitioner (defendant No. 1-b) under section 151 of CPC has been rejected.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that plaintiff/ respondent No. 1 herein has initially instituted a civil suit against defendants for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of suit house. During pendency of the suit defendant No. 1-Umed Singh died and his LRs including present petitioner were brought on record and the suit is still pending. Defendant No. 3 filed written statement on his behalf as well as on behalf of defendants No. 1 and 2 and made averments that original defendant No. 1-Umed Singh has executed a will dated 2.4.2006 in favour of defendant No. 3-Pratap Singh and on the basis of said will he became owner of the suit property. He further averred that being the owner of the suit property, he sold the suit property to one Manish Sharma vide registered sale deed dated 31.3.2012.

3. Defendant No. 1(b)/ petitioner herein also filed written statement stating that the suit property was purchased by Umed Singh from the funds of Joint Hindu Family in his name and Umed Singh and Shanti Devi did not execute any will during their lifetime and therefore, the will shown by Pratap Singh-defendant No. 3 was allegedly forged. Plaintiff and its witnesses were cross-examined by all the defendants. Defendant No. 3/ respondent No. 7 submitted his chief examination and was also cross-examined by the plaintiff.

4. Petitioner/defendant No. 1-b submitted application on 6.12.2017 under section 151 of CPC with the prayer that as the interest of the petitioner (defendant No. 1[b]) and defendant No. 3 are against each other and affecting interest of each other therefore, he be permitted to cross-examine defendant No. 3. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 6.12.2017. Petitioner again submitted an application under section 151 CPC on 11.12.2017 with the prayer that he be permitted to cross examine all the witnesses of defendant No. 3-Pratap Singh Tomar and defendant No. 4-Manish Sharma which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2017.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and supports the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is apposite to consider the scope of cross examination of the co-defendant's witnesses. Wigmore on Evidence Vol. V. Third Edition Article 1367 (page 29) has highlighted the importance of the right of cross-examination and has described it as beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth. It is also stated therein “for two centuries past, the policy of the Anglo American system of Evidence has been to regard the necessity of testing by cross-examination as a vital feature of the law. The belief that no safeguard for testing the value of human statements is comparable to that furnished by cross-examination, and the conviction that no statement (unless by special exception) should be used as testimony until it has been probed and sublimated by that test, has found increasing strength in lengthening experience”. Cross-examination has also been described as a great and permanent contribution of Anglo-American system of law to improved methods of trial procedure. And the same must apply in India where the procedure has been borrowed from English system. Cross-examination form an element of rules of natural justice and as stated in rules of natural justice require that a party should have the opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence on which he relies that the evidence of the opponent should be