##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8900

1 MP-6598-2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 30 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. PETITION No. 6598 of 2023

MOHAN

Versus

KARU AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Yash Nitin Nasery - Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mrs. Kanak Gaharwar - Government Advocate for the

Respondent/State.

WITH

MISC. PETITION No. 1503 of 2024

MOHAN

Versus

KARU PAWAR AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Yash Nitin Nasery - Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mrs. Kanak Gaharwar - Government Advocate for the

Respondent/State.

ORDER

Both the Petitions have been filed in relation to the interlocutory

Orders passed in the same suit and raise similar grounds, therefore, they are

decided by this common Order.

2. These Petitions have been filed by the Plaintiff being aggrieved by

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH

Signing time: 2/2/2026

11:20:05 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8900

2 MP-6598-2023

the Order dated 18.10.2023 as well as the Order dated 07.11.2023 passed in

the Civil Suit. By the Order dated 18.10.2023, the request of the Plaintiff has

been turned down whereby he had requested that if the Court grants

permission to one set of defendants to cross-examine the other set of

defendants, then the defendants should cross examine their witnesses

amongst themselves first and thereafter the Plaintiff would cross examine the

defendant's witnesses. This prayer has been rejected by the Trial Court with

liberty to the Petitioner/Plaintiff to seek re-examination of the witnesses after

close of cross examination by the other defendants.

3. By the Order dated 07.11.2023, the Trial Court has permitted one

set of defendants to cross examine the witnesses of other set of defendants.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that such

a request could not have been permitted by the Trial Court because the

defendants are in collusion with each other and by permitting cross

examination of one set of defendants by another set of defendants, then the

suit of the Petitioner/Plaintiff shall be frustrated. It is argued that one

defendant cannot cross examine the witnesses of another defendant and the

defendants have a right to examine only the witnesses of the Plaintiff and not

otherwise.

5. Upon consideration of the aforesaid assertions, it is seen that the suit

has been filed by the Plaintiff against defendants who are 11 in number out

of which 10 defendants are private persons. The Defendant No.1 is father of

plaintiff, and the Defendant No.2 is Mother of plaintiff. Defendants No.3 to

10 are the sisters of Petitioner/Plaintiff or the legal representatives of the

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH

Signing time: 2/2/2026

11:20:05 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8900

3 MP-6598-2023

sisters.

6. The Plaintiff has contended in the Plaint that in some of the suit

lands, the defendants No.1 and 3 have no right, title or interest and only the

Plaintiff and Defendants No.5 to 7 and 8 to 10 are having right, title and

interest. The second limb of prayer of Petitioner/Plaintiff in the suit is that in

another set of suit lands, the Plaintiff as well as the Defendants No.2, 3 and 5

to 7 have right, title and interest. The third limb of prayer in the suit is that in

the first set of suit lands, permanent injunction be granted against defendants

No.1 to 4. He also seeks costs against Defendant No.1 to 4.

7. From a perusal of the aforesaid reliefs prayed in the Plaint, it is clear

that the interests of all the Defendants are not common and even as per Plaint

averments, the interests of Defendant No.1 to 4 are contrary to interests of

other defendants. In one of the reliefs, the interests of Defendants No.2, 3

and 5 to 7 are adverse to other defendants. Therefore, as per the plaint

averments itself, it is clear that the Plaintiff does not state that all the

defendants are having common interest and he in the Plaint itself submits

that the Plaintiff is having common interest with some of the Defendants, and

that he has