(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for the records of the suit in O.S. No. 97 of 2022 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kodaikanal and eschew the portions of evidence recorded in the cross examination of D.W.1 by the 3rd defendant and the defendants 4 to 8 on 17.06.2026 and pass such other suitable orders.)

1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to eschew the portion of the evidence recorded during the cross-examination of D.W.1 by the defendants 3 to 8.

2. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit against the respondents challenging the validity of the Power of Attorney deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant, dated 11.02.2022, and the mortgage deed executed by the second defendant in favour of the third defendant, dated 08.03.2022. The plaintiffs also sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from further alienating the suit properties.

3. According to the plaintiffs, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and the defendants dealt with the properties by suppressing the possession of the plaintiffs.

4. The defendants contested the suit on the ground that the suit property had been assigned by the Government in favour of the first defendant in the year 1984 and, therefore, the first defendant was entitled to deal with the property as he deemed fit.

5. During the course of trial, the power agent of the first defendant was examined as D.W.1 on behalf of the first defendant. He was cross-examined by the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the trial Court permitted the defendants 3 to 8 to cross-examine D.W.1. Aggrieved by the said permission granted by the trial Court in favour of the defendants 3 to 8 to cross examine D.W.1, the petitioners/plaintiffs have come before this Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that there is no conflict of interest between the first defendant and the other defendants. In such circumstances, the trial Court ought not to have permitted the defendants 3 to 8 to cross-examine D.W.1, who was examined on behalf of the first defendant.

7. It is an admitted fact that the first defendant executed the Power of Attorney in favour of the second defendant and the second defendant, acting as the power agent of the first defendant, executed the mortgage deed in favour of the third defendant. Those documents are under challenge in the present suit.

8. A perusal of the cross-examination of D.W.1 by the third defendant would indicate that the cross-examination was confined only to the mortgage deed executed by the second defendant in favour of the third defendant. Since the third defendant is the mortgagee, he is entitled to cross-examine D.W.1 with regard to the mortgage transaction. Such cross-examination by the third defendant would not cause any prejudice to the petitioners/plaintiffs.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the plaintiffs had already elicited certain answers from D.W.1 during his cross-examination and, thereafter, the defendants 4 to 8 were permitted to cross-examine D.W.1, during which he deposed about the assignment of the suit property in favour of the first defendant. According to the learned counsel, the same would cause prejudice to the plaintiffs.

10. The said submission cannot be accepted. Even during the cross-examination by the plaintiffs, D.W.1 had stated that the suit property was assigned in favour of the first defendant. During such cross-examination, D.W.1 specifically asserted that the suit property had been assigned to the first defendant based on his possession and cultivation. The very same facts were only reiterated during the cross- examination by the defendants 4 to 8. Therefore, the crossexamination of D.W.1 by the defendants 4 to 8 would not cause any prejudice to the petitioners. The facts elicited during the crossexamination by the defendants 4 to 8 had already been elicited by the plaintiffs during their cross-examination of D.W.1. In such circumstances, I do not find that any prejudice has been caused to the plaintiffs by permitting the defendants 3 to 8 to cross-examine D.W.1. Hence, the relief sought for in this Civil Revision Petition cannot be sustained.

11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.