Cross-examination is limited to adverse parties; co-defendants with identical interests cannot claim it as of right.

The right of cross-examination under Sections 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act is confined to an adverse party. In a partition suit, the Madras HC found that the third and fourth defendants had identical interests and were sailing together on the pleadings and written statements, with no conflict of interest between them. As the third defendant had not given evidence against the fourth defendant, the fourth defendant could not assert a statutory right to cross-examine her. The order refusing cross-examination was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether a co-defendant having no adverse interest against another co-defendant can be permitted to cross-examine that co-defendant.

Analysis: The right of cross-examination under Sections 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is confined to the adverse party. On the pleadings and written statements, the third defendant and the fourth defendant were found to be sailing together and to have identical interests in the partition suit. Since there was no clash of interest and the third defendant had not given evidence against the fourth defendant, the fourth defendant could not claim a statutory right to cross-examine her.

Conclusion: The fourth defendant had no right to cross-examine the third defendant and the order refusing such cross-examination was upheld, against the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory right of cross-examination exists only in favour of a party whose interests are adverse to the witness sought to be cross-examined; where co-defendants have no adverse interest inter se, cross-examination cannot be claimed as of right.

---