RAJESH BINDAL, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in the present petition is to the order dated 22.1.2011, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioners -defendants No.8 and 16 seeking permission to cross -examine D.W.17 - Om Parkash produced by defendants No.4 and 13, was dismissed.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 to 5/plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in day to day running of their business by demolishing or dismantling the roof shown in the site plan or from putting any sort of hindrance. The plaintiffs claimed to be tenants on the roof of the shops, situated at Bazar Kanak Mandi, Amritsar bearing No.l98/V -3 Old and New Nos.1189/6 -7 to 1196/6 -7 and 356/6 to 360/6 belonging to Mandir Lala Mahesh Dass Kapoor Trust. Amritsar (for short, "the Trus'"). It is claimed in the suit that respopdent No.1/plaintiff No.l was inducted as tenant on the suit property by the Trust in the year 1960 -61 @ Rs.10/ - per month, which was enhanced from time to time. As some of the tenanted premises had been sold, the buyers thereof were creating hurdles in enjoyment of property by the plaintiffs. In the written statement filed by defendants No.4 and 13, it was admitted that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property as tenants. The other defendants filed their separate written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiffs, however, stating that previous owner of the property had informed that the plaintiffs were licensees over the suit property which was given to them for use for drying the paddy on small portion above the shops of Kirpal Singh and Gurdial Singh, i.e., defendants No.4 and 5 in the suit. Defendants No.4 and 13 produced D.W.I7 -Om Parkash as a witness. In his examination -in -chief, he interalia stated that terrace of the building in dispute was being used by Waheguru Singh, Nanak Singh and others for drying their business articles as licensees. He was cross -examined by the plaintiffs. However, the defendants other than Nos.4 and 13, who had produced the aforesaid witness, filed application seeking to cross -examine for the reason that in fact defendants No.4 and 13 had connived with the plaintiffs and were supporting their case. The application having been rejected, two of the defendants, namely, defendants No.8 and 16 have filed the present petition in this court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiffs itself was not maintainable for the reason that even though injunction was sought and the claim of the plaintiffs was that they are tenants under the Trust, but still the Trust has not been impleaded as defendant in the suit. Two of the defendants, namely, defendants No.4 and 13 filed written statement admitting the case set up by the plaintiffs regarding tenancy on the suit property. In support thereof, D.W.17 -Om Parkash was produced as a witness, who stated in his examination -in -chief that the plaintiffs were licensees on the property in dispute. He further submitted that stand of the defendants other than defendants No.4 and 13 in their written statement is that the case set up by the plaintiffs is totally false. At the most, as has been informed by the landlords, the plaintiffs were licensees for drying their paddy on roof top of shops owned by defendants No.4 and 5 -Kirpal Singh and Gurdial Singh. Under these circumstances, the other defendants certainly have a right to cross -examine the witness produced by defendants No.4 and 13, who have admitted the case set up by the plaintiffs, as the same would adversely affect their interest. In support of the submissions, reliance was placed upon M/s Enncn Castings (P) Ltd. v. M.M. Sundaresh and others, 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 526 (Karnataka) and Pritpal Singh Aurora v. Rajinder Singh Aurora and others, 2009(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 574 (P&H).;