Archana Saxena vs Jaikrishna Puranik

R.S. Jha, J.—The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 22-2-2014, passed by 3rd Civil Judge Class-II, Chhatarpur, in C.S. No. 21-A/2011 by which the petitioners'' application u/s 141 of the C.P.C. seeking permission to cross examine Rajkumar (DW-6), who is the witness of defendants No. 4 to 7, has been rejected on the ground that the said defendants have in fact supported the petitioners and there is collusion between them and in such circumstances as there is no difference in the stand taken by the parties, no fruitful purpose would be achieved by permitting cross examination of the witness.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, by placing the statement of Rajkumar on record has pointed out that the said witness Rajkumar, in the second last sentence of paragraph 42 of his statement has stated that the petitioner knew that the land had already been sold to the respondent. This statement, it is stated is against the stand taken by the petitioners and, therefore, they are entitled to cross examine this witness. It is stated that the Court below has failed to take into consideration the aforesaid aspect while passing the impugned order.

The petition is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, who has stated that the stand of the defendants is similar and in such circumstances the Court below has rightly rejected the application of the petitioners. It is stated that the attempt on the part of the petitioners by filing such an application is only to delay the matter and frustrate the claim of the respondent No. 1 and in such circumstances the application being filed with ulterior motive has rightly been rejected by the Court below.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after perusing the record, it is observed that on reading the statement of Rajkumar (DW-6) it is apparent that the finding recorded by the Court below that there is nothing against the petitioners in the statement warranting cross examination is perverse.

In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and the Court below is directed to permit the petitioners to cross examine the witness Rajkumar, however, looking to the fact that the matter is pending since long and that the petitioners undertake to ensure that Rajkumar (DW-6) shall be cross examined by the petitioners on the date he appears before the Court, it is directed that on the next date of hearing the Court below shall grant one opportunity to the petitioners to cross examine Rajkumar (DW-6) and shall issue summons to the witness for his appearance for that purpose. On appearance of Rajkumar (DW-6) on the date fixed by the Court below, the petitioners shall positively cross examine him on that date itself, failing which the Court below shall be at liberty to proceed further.

With the aforesaid directions, the petition filed by the petitioners accordingly stands allowed.

C.C. as per rules.