TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses Civil Revision Petition, affirming limited cross-examination rights in partition suit.</h1> <h3>Chinnaiah Versus Valliammal, Nacharammal, Sarasu @ Saroja, Meenakshi, Ramayee, Anver Batcha Represented by his power agent, Gnanambal, Rameeja Beevi, Mohamed Basheer, Mohamed Fathima, Jaibunnisa, Gowsinisha Begum, Valliammai, Rajamani and Periyamarudhu Noorunisa</h3> The court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, upholding the Trial Court's decision that the fourth defendant, being a co-defendant and husband of the ... Violation of principles of natural justice - whether a party without any adverse interest be permitted to cross-examine the witness? - suit for partition - HELD THAT:- The defendant may cross-examine the co-defendant or any other witness, who has given evidence against him and a reply on such evidence though there is no joint issue between them. In this case, the third defendant being the co-defendant of the fourth defendant has not given anything against the fourth defendant in her proof affidavit in examination-in-chief. No doubt when there is no clash of interest between the third and fourth defendants and nothing has been said as against the fourth defendant by the third defendant, there cannot be any statutory right of cross-examination of the third defendant by the fourth defendant. As per Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 only an 'adverse party' can cross-examine the other parties. Being co-defendants admittedly the fourth respondent husband is not an 'adverse party' to the third defendant wife. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned I Additional District Judge (PCR), Thanjavur dated 04.09.2015 is in order and it is not necessary to interfere with the order passed by the learned I Additional District Judge (PCR), Thanjavur. The learned I Additional District Judge (PCR), Thanjavur is directed to dispose of O.S.No.172 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order - this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. Issues:The judgment deals with the issue of whether a party without any adverse interest should be permitted to cross-examine a witness in a suit for partition.Comprehensive Details:Issue 1: Adverse Interest in Cross-ExaminationThe case involved a suit for partition where the third defendant and fourth defendant, who are husband and wife, were parties. The plaintiff argued that the fourth defendant should not be allowed to cross-examine the third defendant as they did not have adverse interests. The court referred to legal definitions of 'adverse party' and relevant sections of the Indian Evidence Act. The court found that since the third and fourth defendants had similar interests and their pleadings were aligned, the fourth defendant had no right to cross-examine the third defendant.Issue 2: Legal PrecedentsThe court cited legal precedents to support its decision. It referred to a case where it was established that the right to cross-examine a witness is given only to a party with adverse interest. The court also highlighted that when parties are aligned in a case and not adverse to each other, there is no statutory right of cross-examination. The judgment emphasized that the right of examining a witness is limited to parties with adverse interests as per the Indian Evidence Act.Issue 3: Dismissal of Civil Revision PetitionAfter considering arguments from both parties, the court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition. It upheld the order of the Trial Court, stating that the fourth defendant, being a co-defendant and husband of the third defendant, did not have adverse interest, and therefore, should not be permitted to cross-examine. The court directed the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings in the partition suit within three months.In conclusion, the judgment clarified the principles of cross-examination in cases where parties do not have adverse interests and upheld the Trial Court's decision to prevent the fourth defendant from cross-examining the third defendant in a suit for partition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
