9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (2) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A. No. 270 of 1976 in O. S. No. 56 of 1970 dated April, 15, 1976. 3. O. S. No. 56 of 1970 was instituted by the petitioner before the court below for a declaration that the debt due by the plaintiff to the first defendant was partially discharged. Para 9 of plaint mentions about the relief and reads thus: Therefore the plaintiff prays that the court may be pleased to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff against the 1st defendant, (i) for declaration that the debt due by the plaintiff to 1st defendant under promissory note dated 19-12-1969 was discharged to the extent of Rs. 7315-41 or with alternative. (1) for payment of Rs. 8023-00 by the 1st defendant. (2) for payment of interest thereon at 12% p.a. (3) for costs o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that plaintiff did not maintain the accounts properly and the signatures of defendants was fraudulently obtained by the plaintiff on the account books. It is under those circumstances, the application giving rise to the above revision was filed by the petitioners to cross-examine the plaintiff at this stage. 6. Counter was filed by the plaintiff denying the allegations. It is stated in the counter affidavit that after the plaintiff entered the witness box there arose some ill-feeling between the petitioners and respondent in regard to other matters extraneous to suit and notices were exchanged between the present petitioners and respondents. Due to that ill feeling, to harass the plaintiff, the defendants took up this method, conspired a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t stating that the accounts of the plaintiff are maintained properly and in view of the further fact that these defendants said that the suit may be decreed in favour of the plaintiff as against the 1st defendant as prayed for, the defendants 3, 4 and 7 have no right to cross-examine the plaintiff, and if they are allowed it results in otherwise avoidable harassment to the plaintiff. 9. Sri A. S. C. Bose, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted on the other hand that a most innocuous order was passed by the Court below in permitting the defendants 3, 4 and 7 to cross-examine the plaintiff confining that only to the matters contained in the written statement and, therefore no injury much less irreparable one is supposed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imagination defendants 3, 4 and 7 can be said to have any interest that can be characterised even remotely as adverse to that of the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, I am satisfied that Sri Narasimha Rao is quite correct in his contention that persons in the position of defendants 3, 4 and 7 cannot be said to have any right statutorily to cross-examine the plaintiff. When the defendants do not have such a right conferred upon them, permitting them to cross-examine the plaintiff would cause otherwise avoidable harassment to the plaintiff. 13. As against that, Sri Bose contends that most innocuous order was passed by the court below in the sense that the cross-examination is directed to be confined only to the contents of the written ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
