1977 (2) TMI 141 - HC - Indian Laws

Defendants Cannot Cross-Examine Plaintiff if Supportive in Written Statement

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that defendants who supported the plaintiff's suit in their written statement do not have the right to cross-examine ... Examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination under the Indian Evidence Act - right to cross-examine - adverse interest - party with no adverse interest cannot cross-examine - avoidable harassment - exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C.Right to cross-examine - adverse interest - examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination under the Indian Evidence Act - avoidable harassment - Whether defendants who in their written statement admit the plaintiff's accounts and pray for decree in favour of the plaintiff have a statutory right to cross-examine the plaintiff. - HELD THAT: - Section 137 recognises examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination and confers the right to cross-examine only upon a person who is adverse to the witness. Where defendants (as here defendants 3, 4 and 7) have in their written statement explicitly accepted the plaintiff's accounts and have asked that the suit be decreed in the plaintiff's favour, they do not possess any interest adverse to the plaintiff which would attract the statutory right of cross-examination. Permitting such defendants to cross-examine in those circumstances would expose the plaintiff to otherwise avoidable harassment. The lower court's order allowing the application under its inherent powers to permit cross-examination was therefore an illegal exercise of jurisdiction insofar as it authorised defendants who had no adverse interest to cross-examine the plaintiff. [Paras 12, 14]Defendants who have admitted the plaintiff's accounts and prayed for decree have no statutory right to cross-examine the plaintiff; the order permitting them to do so was illegally exercised and is set aside.Final Conclusion: Revision allowed; order of the Subordinate Judge permitting defendants 3, 4 and 7 to cross-examine the plaintiff is quashed as an illegal exercise of jurisdiction, and the petition is allowed without costs. Issues:Whether a defendant who filed a written statement in favor of the plaintiff can cross-examine the plaintiff.Analysis:The revision petition in this case questions whether a defendant, who has filed a written statement supporting the plaintiff's suit, has the right to cross-examine the plaintiff. The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking a declaration that a debt owed to the first defendant was partially discharged. Defendants 2 to 8, including defendants 3, 4, and 7, filed a written statement accepting the plaintiff's accounts. However, later, defendants 3, 4, and 7 sought to cross-examine the plaintiff based on allegations of fraud in obtaining their signatures on the account books. The plaintiff contended that the defendants' original written statement stands correct, and they have no right to cross-examine him at this stage, alleging that the application was filed to harass him. The court allowed the defendants' petition to cross-examine, stating that they should be given a chance but restricted the questions to the matters in their written statement.The plaintiff argued that defendants 3, 4, and 7, by supporting the plaintiff's suit in their written statement, do not have an adverse interest and, therefore, no statutory right to cross-examine the plaintiff. The purpose of cross-examination is to test the veracity of witness testimony, which is not applicable when parties are aligned in interest. The court agreed with this argument, stating that allowing the defendants to cross-examine would cause unnecessary harassment to the plaintiff. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the court's order was innocuous, limiting the cross-examination to the contents of the written statement and allowing objections if it deviated. Ultimately, the court held that defendants 3, 4, and 7 had no right to cross-examine the plaintiff and that the lower court's decision to permit it was illegal. Consequently, the revision petition was allowed, and the defendants were not permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff.In conclusion, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh ruled that defendants who supported the plaintiff's suit in their written statement do not have the right to cross-examine the plaintiff. The court found that allowing such cross-examination would lead to unnecessary harassment of the plaintiff. Therefore, the court allowed the revision petition, disallowing the defendants from cross-examining the plaintiff, and the decision was made without costs.