Bombay High Court
Daksha Keshirchand Jhaveri vs Bhanumati Keshrichand Jhaveri Decd And ... on 21 April, 2021
Author: Sandeep K. Shinde
Bench: Sandeep K. Shinde
Rane 1/20 WP(ST)-5747-2021
WP(ST)-6142-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 5747 OF 2021
M/s. Gnani Investment and Trading
Company Private Limited .....Petitioner
V/s.
Smt. Bhanumati Keshrichand Jhaveri
and Ors. ....Respondents
ALONGWITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 6142 OF 2021
Daksha Keshrichand Jhaveri & Ors. .....Petitioners
V/s.
Smt. Bhanumati Keshrichand Jhaveri
and Ors. ....Respondents
****
Mr. Y.S. Jahgirdar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Manish Parekh
a/w. Ms. Amita Jasani a/w. Ms. Kia Menon i/by. M/s.
Purnanand & Co., Advocate for the petitioner in WP-5747-
2021.
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2021 00:52:12 :::
Rane 2/20 WP(ST)-5747-2021
WP(ST)-6142-2021
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Ms. Dhwani Mehta Desai i/by.
DM Law Chambers for petitioner in WP(ST)-6142-2021.
Mr. Gautam Ankhad a/w. Mr. Sunny Shah, a/w. Mr. Ankur
Shah i/by. Ms. Sushma Singh for respondents no.2 to 4 in both
the matters.
CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.
RESD. ON : 5TH APRIL, 2021.
PRON. ON : 21ST APRIL, 2021.
ORDER :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. These two petitions can be disposed off by a common order.
2. Rule. With the consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.
3. Petitioner in Writ Petition (St.) No. 5747 of 2021, a defendant no.7 in Suit No.42/62 and Petitioners in Writ Petition No.6142/2021, original plaintiffs, now transposed as ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2021 00:52:12 ::: Rane 3/20 WP(ST)-5747-2021 WP(ST)-6142-2021 defendants no.8 to 13, were declined an opportunity of testing truthfulness, of plaintiff's witness by cross-examination. The Appellate Bench concurred with the order of the trial Court. Thus, these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. Briefly stated, petitioner's case is; T.E. and R. Suit No. 42/62 of 2009 was instituted by, in all twelve plaintiffs, against six defendants seeking inter-alia, eviction of the defendants from the suit property and other consequential reliefs. That, during the pendency of this suit, plaintiffs no.2, 7 to 10 and 12 (petitioners in Writ Petition (St.) No. 6142 of 2021) assigned their rights in the suit property vide three deeds of assignments in favour of M/s. Gnani Investment and Trading Company Private Limited ("GITCPL" for short). There, is some dispute between these plaintiffs no.2, 7 to 10 and 12 and plaintiffs no.4 to 6 as, to whether these plaintiffs have assigned their entire interest in the suit premises to GITCPL or whether have assigned only 75% of their interest in the suit property to ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2021 00:52:12 ::: Rane 4/20 WP(ST)-5747-2021 WP(ST)-6142-2021 GITCPL. On the basis of three separate deeds of assignments, GITCPL sought directions to the plaintiff to implead GITCPL as plaintiff no.13 in the suit alongwith remaining twelve plaintiffs. The trial Court vide order dated 19th October, 2016 granted GITCPL's application and directed plaintiffs no.4 to 6 to implead GITCPL as co-plaintiffs in the suit. As a result, by a separate order dated 14th March, 2007 the trial Court ordered deletion of plaintiffs no.2, 7 to 10 and 12. The order dated 19 th October, 2016 was challenged by plaintiffs no.4 to 6; whereas order dated 14th March, 2017 ordering deletion of plaintiffs no.2, 7 to 10 and 12 was challenged by these plaintiffs in Writ Petition (St.) No. 5917 of 2017. This Court by common judgment, disposed of both the petitions with the following order :
"(A) The impugned order dated 19th October, 2016 to the extent it directs plaintiffs nos.4 to 6 implead GTCPL as co-plaintiff is set aside. Instead, plaintiff Nos.4 to 6 are directed to implead GTCPL as defendant No.7 in the suit.
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2021 00:52:12 :::
Rane 5/20 WP(ST)-5747-2021
WP(ST)-6142-2021
(B) The impugned order dated 14th March 2017 made by the learned trial Judge ordering deletion of plaintiff nos.2, 7 to 10 and 12 is hereby set aside. Instead, the plaintiff Nos.4 to 6 are directed to transpose plaintiff Nos.2, 7 to 10 and 12 as defendant Nos.8 to 13 in the suit.
(C) Plaintiff Nos.4 to 6 carry out the aforesaid amendments within a period of two weeks from today. (D) In case, the plaintiff nos.4 to 6 at any stage desire to abandon or withdraw the suit, then, they shall give 30 days prior notice to the newly impleaded/transposed defendant Nos.7 to 13 of their intentions to do so. Defendant Nos.7 to 13, if they so choose, may then apply to the trial Judge to transpose them as plaintiffs in the suit.
(E)If at any stage the defendant Nos.7 to 13
apprehend collusion between the plaintiff Nos.4 to 6 and the original defendant Nos.1 to 6, the defendant Nos.7 to 13 will be at liberty to take out appropriate ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2021 00:52:12 ::: Rane 6/20 WP(ST)-5747-2021 WP(ST)-6142-2021 application seeking appropriate orders, including, their transposition as plaintiffs in the suit. Such, application if made, will be considered by the trial Court on its own merits and in accordance with law. (F) Rule is made absolute in both these petitions to the aforesaid extent.
(G)There shall be no order as to costs."
5. This Court, while disposing of both the petitions, has clearly expressed, that in suit for eviction of the tenants, there is really no scope to adjudicate any inter-se disputes between the plaintiff's themselves. Therefore, the presence of GITCPL, or for that matter, plaintiffs no.2, 7 to 10 and 12, who have on their own say, assigned 75% of their rights in the suit property in favour of GITCPL, as defendants may really make no substantial difference or impact. The apprehension of the petitioners (in both petitions) that, plaintiffs no.4 to 6 may either abandon the suit or collude with the defendants no.1 to 6, to the detriment of their interest has been taken care of by ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2021 00:52:12 ::: Rane 7/20 WP(ST)-5747-2021 WP(ST)-6142-2021 granting them liberty for appropriate orders including orders for transposition, if they apprehend collision.
6. The judgment and order dated 20th September, 2017 was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Special Leave Petition. It was disposed of, on 6th February, 2018 in the following terms;
"After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the order of the High Court does not call for any interference. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed in limine.
However, it is made clear that in case the plaintiffs succeed in the suit the benefit thereof shall ensure to the petitioners as well, who are transposed as performa defendants by the High Court."
7. Thus, in terms of the order dated 20 th September, 2017, original plaintiffs no.2, 7 to 10 and 12 have been transposed as defendants no.8 to 13 and GITCPL, as defendant no.7.
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2021 00:52:12 :::
Rane 8/20 WP(ST)-5747-2021
WP(ST)-6142-2021
8. It may be stated that the plaintiffs have filed their affidavit-in-lieu-of evidence on 28th September 2018; that defendants no.8 to 13 (petitioners in Writ Petition (St.) No. 6142 of 2021) filed their written statement on 14 th March, 2019; whereas, GITCPL (defendant no.7) filed its written statement on 18th October, 2018.
9. This suit being under the Rent Act for recovery of possession, obviously no relief has been claimed/sought against M/s. GITCPL or defendants no.8 to 13. It is so evident from the issues framed by the trial Court, which are as under :
"1. Do the Plaintiffs prove that, Defendant's tenancy has been legally and validly terminated by notice dated 11.02.2009 ?
2. Do the Plaintiffs prove that Defendant No.1 were plaintiff's monthly tenants in respect of the suit property ? ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2021 00:52:12 :::
Rane 9/20 WP(ST)-5747-2021
WP(ST)-6142-2021
3. Does Defendant No.4 prove that their rights in the suit premises are merged in higher rights under deed of conveyance dated 10.11.2009 ?
4. Is suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ?
5. Whether the suit is maintainable ?
6. Whether Plaintiffs prove that he has derivative title of the suit premises ?
7. Whether the suit is within limitation ?
8. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit ?
9. Are the plaintiffs entitled to get vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises ?
10. Are the plaintiffs entitled to get injunction against Defendant No.1 to 7 as prayed ?
11. Are the plaintiffs entitled to get mesne profits as prayed ? If yes, how much ?
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2021 00:52:12 :::
Rane 10/20 WP(ST)-5747-2021
WP(ST)-6142-2021
12. What order and decree ?"
10. In consideration of the facts of the case, it is to be affirmed that, interest of petitioners in the suit is not adverse to the interest of plaintiffs. Although, there is a dispute between the plaintiffs no.4 to 6 on one hand and defendants no.8 to 13 (original plaintiffs no.2, 7 to 10 and 12), on the other hand, as to whether they have assigned their entire interest in the suit property to GITCPL or whether they have assigned only 75% of their interest in the suit premises, there is no scope for resolution of this inter-se dispute in the suit for eviction filed under the Rent Act.
11. In the backdrop of these facts, question arising for my consideration is, whether the trial Court was justified in declining opportunity to petitioners to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness.
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2021 00:52:12 :::
Rane 11/20 WP(ST)-5747-2021
WP(ST)-6142-2021
12. Heard Mr. Jahgirdar, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Ankhad, learned Counsel for the respondents.
13. The petitioners, in support of their contentions that they have right to cross-examine plaintiff's witnesses, have relied on the following judgments :
(a) Ida Berta dos Remedios Cunha @ Gomes V/ s. Victor Luis, 2013 SCC Online Bombay 1577.
(b) Kalpana N. Samarth and Anr. V/s. Dr. Seema A. Mankal decided in Writ Petition No. 7537/2019 (Nagpur).
. In so far as, the case of Ida Berta (supra) is concerned, therein petitioners, defendants no.5 and 6, were supporting the case of the plaintiffs, on most of the facts, but were disputing Deed of Gift and Power of Attorney executed in ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2021 00:52:12 ::: Rane 12/20 WP(ST)-5747-2021 WP(ST)-6142-2021 favour of plaintiffs, on the basis of which, half right was asserted in the suit property. Thus, defendants were permitted to cross- examine plaintiff's witnesses. However, after cross-examination was partly recorded, they were further barred from cross- examining P.W.1. Therefore, in the cited case, interest of petitioners-defendants was adverse, to interest of the plaintiffs. So is not the case in hand.
. In next case, issue was "Whether the pleadings alone could be treated to be the determinative factor for deciding the sequence of cross-examination". As to facts therein, defendant no.1 was not entirely supporting the case of the plaintiffs, but merely admitted the nature of suit property that was let out to him and the quantum of rent agreed to be paid. Therefore, ratio in this judgment, has no bearing over the issue in the case at hand.
14. Mr. Ankhad, learned Counsel for the respondents in both the petitions relied on :
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2021 00:52:12 :::
Rane 13/20 WP(ST)-5747-2021
WP(ST)-6142-2021
(a) Hussens Hasanali Pulavwala Versus. Sabbirbhai Hasanali Pulavwala and Others, 1981 SCC Online Guj
30.
(b) Thota Suryanarayana and another Versus. Kanumui Sitarama Bapiraju and Others, 2003 SCC Online AP
960. . In the case of Hussens Hasanali (supra), the question for consideration was, "whether the Court should exercise the revisional jurisdiction on a plea that, there is no provision in law for deleting the evidence which has already been recorded". The facts therein were, that defendants no.2 and 3 were allowed to cross-examine the plaintiff, as if they were adverse parties. When the attention of the learned Judge was drawn to the fact that defendants no.4 and 5 had no right to cross-examine the plaintiff as they were supporting the case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint, the learned Judge rectified its error by directing deletion of cross-examination of the plaintiff by the learned Advocate for defendants no.4 and 5;
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2021 00:52:12 :::
Rane 14/20 WP(ST)-5747-2021
WP(ST)-6142-2021
. Whereas in the case of Thota Suryanarayana (supra),
application under Order 38 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code and Section 38 of the Evidence Act was filed with a prayer to expunge or delete the cross-examination of P.W.1 to 3 by defendants no.13 and 14 in the suit. The said application was allowed and the cross-examination of P.W.1 to 3 by defendants no.13 and 14 had been expunged mainly on the grounds that these parties cannot be treated as adverse parties and hence, they have no right to cross-examine these witnesses. This order was challenged in a revision. Relying on the judgment of Karumanchi Subbarao Versus. Yarlagadda Venkatappaiah, reported in AIR 1978 AP 193, the revision was not entertained. Mr. Ankad, therefore submits, petitioners, not being adverse party, they have no right to cross- examine plaintiff's witnesses.
15. Be that as it may, in view of the facts of the case and for the following reasons, I hold petitioners have no right to test the veracity of plaintiffs witnesses.
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2021 00:52:12 :::
Rane 15/20 WP(ST)-5747-2021
WP(ST)-6142-2021
Reasons :
(i). No evidence affecting a party is admissible
against that party, unless the later has had an opportunity of testing its truthfulness by cross- examination. It is certainly implied by Section 138 that a party must have had an opportunity to cross-examine. As a general rule, evidence is not legally admissible against a party, who at the time, was given no opportunity to cross-examine the witness or rebutting their testimony by other evidence. It is a right of the litigant in a suit, unless he waives it, to have an opportunity of cross-examining the witness, whose testimony is to be used against him.
(ii). Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, provides that cross-examination is examination of a witness by the adverse party.
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2021 00:52:12 :::
Rane 16/20 WP(ST)-5747-2021
WP(ST)-6142-2021
(iii). In the case of Dwarka Dass and Ors. V/s.
State and Others, 1979 Criminal Law Journal 550, it was held thus :
"By virtue of Ss.137 and 138 the examination of a witness will include his examination-in-chief, his cross-
examination by the opposite party if any and his re-examination by the party calling him. The right of cross-examination not only is referable to S.138, Evidence Act itself but one of the principles of natural justice is that the evidence may not be read against a party if the same has not been subjected to cross-examination or atleast an opportunity has not been given for cross-examination. S.138 of the Evidence Act impliedly lays down that the statement of a witness would be read as evidence against a party only if it was tested on the anvil of cross-examination or opportunity was afforded for the purpose. All witnesses are subject to cross-examination. The right of cross-examination could not be curtailed or circumscribed on one pretext or the other or in one way or the other, as shutting up of the statement is intended to be used. It is the right of every litigant unless he gives up up the same to be afforded an opportunity of cross-
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2021 00:52:12 :::
Rane 17/20 WP(ST)-5747-2021
WP(ST)-6142-2021
examining the witness whose testimony may be used against him at the trial. On the parity of reasoning therefore, a witness called by the court also is liable to be cross- examined by the parties to the proceedings, if they desire to do so."
16. In the case of K. Subbarao (supra), it has been held as under :
"Section 137 confers right to cross-examine witness upon the person concerned only when he has an interest adverse to the one who is proposed to be cross-examined. The very purpose of the cross- examination is to test the veracity of the witness. Therefore, when in a suit by the partner against the other partners for declaration that the debt due by the plaintiff to the defendants was partially discharged, the defendants specifically admit in their written statement that the accounts were properly maintained by the plaintiff and request the Court to decree the suit as prayed for the defendants cannot be said to have an interest adverse to that of the plaintiff and therefore they cannot be permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff because they have no statutory right to do so."
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2021 00:52:12 :::
Rane 18/20 WP(ST)-5747-2021
WP(ST)-6142-2021
17. Thus, to be asserted that, it is the right of the
litigant to cross-examine the witness, whose testimony can be used against him in the trial or the party against whom the statement is intended to be used and further cross-examination is the examination of a witness by an adverse party. In the case at hand, the interest of the petitioners is not adverse to the interest of the plaintiffs. It is a suit for eviction of tenants under the Rent Act. Petitioners are claiming their rights in the suit property alongwith the plaintiffs. Therefore, inter-se dispute between the plaintiffs in respect of quantum of their divided/undivided share in the suit property, cannot be addressed in the eviction suit under the Rent Act and there is no scope to adjudicate this inter-se dispute. Strictly speaking, the petitioners are not "adverse parties" within the meaning of Section 137 of the Evidence Act. Moreover, neither testimony of the plaintiffs and their witnesses, is to be used against the petitioners, nor testing truthfulness of plaintiffs witnesses, would assist the Court in rendering finding on issue/s framed in the suit. In essence, it is to be affirmed that, no reliefs are ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2021 00:52:12 ::: Rane 19/20 WP(ST)-5747-2021 WP(ST)-6142-2021 sought by the plaintiffs against the petitioners, the material, even if elicited in the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness by these petitioners would have no bearing over while answering the issues framed by the trial Court. It is in these circumstances, the petitioners have no right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses.
18. One more fact may be stated. M/s. GITCPL (petitioners in Writ Petition (St.) No. 5747/2021) have instituted Suit No. 858/2019 against the respondents (plaintiffs no.4 to 6 in the instant petition), in March 2019, seeking partition of the suit property (tenanted property) by metes and bounds claiming 75% share in the leasehold rights therein. Thus, petitioner M/s. GITCPL has taken a step to assert its right in the suit property. Thus, to be affirmed, suit in question is not a "former suit" to Suit No.858/2019, for all purposes.
19. Thus, in consideration of the facts of the case and for the reasons stated above, the Courts below have not committed ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2021 00:52:12 ::: Rane 20/20 WP(ST)-5747-2021 WP(ST)-6142-2021 error in exercise of jurisdiction while denying opportunity to proforma defendants-petitioners herein, to test the veracity of plaintiff's witnesses. Question is answered accordingly. In the result, the petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2021 00:52:12 :::