G V FILMS Vs. UNIT TRUST OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The snort point that arises in this appeal is whether defendant No. 2 is entitled to cross-examine DW 1 before the DRT. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.11.2001 has passed order holding that D-2 is entitled to cross-examine DW 1. As against that order the appeal is filed.

(2.) Counsel appearing for the appellant-1st defendant submitted that the plaintiff has sought the relief against the defendants and the plaintiff has categorically stated in the plaint that inadvertently the Bank has paid the amount to the 1st defendant and there is a specific case of the plaintiff that if the Bank has inadvertently paid the money to the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant should not be allowed to cross-examine the 1st defendant.

(3.) COUNSEL for the 1st defendant submits that D-l is entitled for the dividend whereas COUNSEL for the 2nd defendant contends that only D-2 is entitled to get the dividend since the transfer was effected in May, 1992. Whether the transfer was effected in May, 1992 as contended by the 2nd defendant or in July, 1992 as contended by the 1st defendant these are all matters to be gone into during the trial and the DRT has to decide with regard to the liability of the parties. The 1st defendant was examined as DW 1 and when D-2 was to cross-examine DW 1 it was objected by the COUNSEL for the 1st defendant.