- (1.) Heard Shri R.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Shri Madhukar Dixit, learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
(2.) The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.11.2006 passed by the District Judge, Barabanki in Civil Revision No.86 of2006 as well as the order dated 18.04.2006 passed by the opposite party No.2 the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barabanki in Regular Suit No. 634 of 2001, Ravi Shanker v. Shiva Kant and others.
(3.) The petitioners have filed the suit for permanent injunction against the opposite party Nos.3 to 7 in the year 2001. After the filing of the written statement and the replication, the Trial Court had framed certain issues including the issue with regard to the genuineness of the Will in favour of the plaintiff/petitioners. During the course of the proceeding the evidence of PW3 Om Prakash Sharma and PW4 Madhuri Tiwari along with other witnesses were recorded before the Trial Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that both the witnesses PW3 and PW4 became hostile and gave their statement against the interest of the plaintiff/petitioners. The petitioners in order to cross-examine the PW3 and PW4 moved applications marked is C-82 and C-84. However, the learned Court by the impugned order dated 18.04.2006, rejected the application C-82 and the permission to cross-examine PW3 at that stage was refused. The learned Counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the application C-84 was allowed and the learned Court had permitted to cross-examine PW4. However, since the permission to cross-examine PW3 who was the chief witness and the writer of the Will was refused,. therefore, a prejudice has been caused to the petitioners.;