9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
The judgment involves the right of a co-defendant to cross-examine the deposing defendant in case of conflict of interest between them. Summary: The petitions were filed against the orders of the Court of the XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, which denied permission for cross-examination of co-defendants in O.S. No. 15030/04. The defendant No. 4 sought the opportunity to cross-examine defendant No. 1 due to a conflict of interest. The Trial Court's order allowed cross-examination of the Court Commissioner by defendant Nos. 1 to 3, indicating a potential conflict. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 argued that the plaintiff colluded with defendant No. 4, necessitating cross-examination. The main issue was whether a co-defendant has the right to cross-examine the deposing defendant in case of a conflict of interest. In the judgment, it was established that in cases of conflict of interest between co-defendants, each party must have the opportunity to cross-examine the other. The Trial Court's prior observation hinted at a possible conflict between the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and defendant No. 4. The judgment referenced legal precedents supporting the right of cross-examination for co-defendants when their interests clash. The Court highlighted the importance of allowing cross-examination in such situations to ensure fairness and justice. The Court referred to judgments from Rajasthan High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court, emphasizing the right of cross-examination for co-defendants in adversarial positions. The Trial Court's disallowance of cross-examination was deemed incorrect. Consequently, the impugned orders were quashed, permitting defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to cross-examine defendant No. 4 and vice versa. However, this permission was granted with the condition that cross-examination should only address the clash of interests between the parties. The judgment reiterated the need for fair proceedings and adherence to legal principles in allowing cross-examination among co-defendants. Ultimately, both petitions were allowed in line with the clarified direction for cross-examination, and no costs were imposed.
|
