Mohan Kanwar vs Hari Singh

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by respondent No.1 Hari Singh seeking to cross-examine the petitioner, has been allowed.

A suit was filed by one Jai Singh, seeking cancellation of Adoption Deed dated 14.02.2006 and enforcement of adoption deed dated 27.10.1987

executed by him adopting Kapur Singh and Hari Singh respectively.

During pendency of the suit, Jai Singh died and the petitioner being a natural born daughter of deceased Jai Singh was impleaded as party, as Hari

Singh claimed himself to be the adopted son of Jai Singh, he was also transposed as plaintiff. When the petitioner Smt. Mohan Kanwar came in

witness-box, against the averments made in the plaint, she gave her statement supporting the Adoption Deed in favour of Kapur Singh dated

14.02.2006.

On the said event, the plaintiff No.2 Hari Singh filed an application seeking to cross-examine Smt. Mohan Kanwar, the same was allowed by the trial

court.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that once Smt. Mohan Kanwar and Hari Singh both were plaintiffs, the trial court could not have allowed to cross-examine one plaintiff by another plaintiff and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set-aside.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.

As noticed herein-before, the suit was filed by Jai Singh supporting the adoption deed in favour of Hari Singh, once Jai Singh died and Smt. Mohan

Kanwar was impleaded as his legal representative, and Hari Singh was transposed as plaintiff, and thereafter, Smt.Mohan Kanwar contrary to the plaint averments took stand in her statement as a plaintiff witness and was seeking to demolish the plaint averments itself, the affected party by the said statement was Hari Singh only and therefore, irrespective of the status of said Hari Singh being a plaintiff, the trial court was justified in permitting the cross-examination of the petitioner.

No case for interference in the order impugned is made out. There is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.