O R D E R

The Revision petitioner is challenging the docket order dated

22.09.2022 made in memo filed by the 1st respondent/1st defendant in O.S. No.

2500 of 2020, passed by the learned XXIII Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai.

2. Heard, Ms. Menaka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. R.V.Gayathri for Mr. P.B. Ramanujam, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. Notice has been served but there is no representation on behalf of the first respondent.

3. The second defendant in O.S. No. 2500 of 2020 is the Civil Revision Petitioner herein. The first respondent in this Civil Revision Petition is the first defendant in the said suit. The suit in O.S. No.2500 of 2020 was filed by the second respondent in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. The suit in O.S. No. 2500 of 2020 was filed for a declaration to declare that the mortgage deed dated 13.02.2012 registered as document No. 757 of 2012 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Virugambakkam stands redeemed and to direct the first defendant to return the original title deeds relating to the sale deed dated 15.02.1982 bearing document No. 661 of 1982 registered on the file of Sub-Registrar, Kodambakkam and Patta of the plaintiff pertaining to the suit property and for costs.

5. In the suit, the first defendant/first respondent in this Civil Revision Petition has filed his written statement. Similarly, the second defendant/revision petitioner herein also filed the written statement repudiating the plaint averments. When the trial in the suit commenced and PW1 was examined in chief, a memo was filed by the first defendant in the suit/first respondent in this Civil Revision Petition to defer the cross- examination of PW1 by alleging that the plaintiff and the second defendant are colluding together to defeat the right of the first defendant. It was further stated that plaintiff and the second defendant are having common interest and sailing together against the first defendant/first respondent. Accepting the Memo filed by the first defendant, the court below passed the order dated 22.09.2022 directing the second defendant to cross-examine PW1 and thereaftrer, the first defendant side shall cross-examine PW1. Aggrieved by the said order dated 22.09.2022, the second defendant in the suit has come up with this Civil Revision Petition.

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the memo filed by the first defendant to defer the cross examination of Plaintiff side witness, is not maintainable in law. It is further submitted that the provision to defer the cross examination is only available in Section 231 of Criminal Procedure Code and the order passed by the trial court is without jurisdiction. Section 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as follows:

“231: Evidence for Prosecution:(1) on the date so fixed, the judge shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.

(2) The Judge may, in his discretion, permit the cross examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witness have been examined or recall any witness for further cross examination.”

7. According to the learned counsel, the trial court misconstrued the meaning of right to cross-examination which is intended to provide an opportunity to the adverse party to put material questions to the witness. Even if there is conflict of interst between the plaintiff and the second defendant, it will not confer any right to the first defendant to file the memo and to defer the cross-examination of PW1. The 1st respondent / 1st defendant filed the memo, praying to defer the cross examination of Plaintiff side witness by stating that the revision petitioner/2nd defendant is the son-in-law of the 2nd respondent/plaintiff and both have colluded together to defer the right of the first defendant. Even if it is so, it will not be a ground to defer the cross- examination of PW1, the cross-examination of P.W.1 can be deferred as per Order XVIII Rule 1 of CPC. As p