In Partition Suit, Chhattisgarh HC Orders Defendants Supporting Plaintiffs To Cross-Examine Their Witnesses First

The plaintiffs brought a civil suit seeking declaration of title, partition, separate possession and permanent injunction.

The petitioners, defendants Nos. 1–4, contested the claim, while defendants Nos. 5–8 supported it.

During the plaintiffs’ evidence, defendants Nos. 1–4 applied under Section 140 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, seeking an order that defendants Nos. 5–8 cross-examine the plaintiffs’ witnesses before them.

They argued that otherwise the supporting defendants could repair gaps exposed in the plaintiffs’ evidence.

The trial court rejected the application by order dated 17 February 2026; defendants Nos. 1–4 challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order XVIII Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, address the right to begin and the presentation of evidence at the hearing.

Section 135 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872—considered alongside its corresponding provision, Section 140 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023—provides that the order of producing and examining witnesses is regulated by procedural law and practice, and, in their absence, by the court’s discretion.

The Court found no prescribed rule governing which of the co-defendants must cross-examine the plaintiffs’ witnesses first; the sequence could therefore be determined by the court in the circumstances of the case.

Defendants Nos. 1–4 disputed the plaintiffs’ claim, whereas defendants Nos. 5–8 admitted and supported it.

The Court accepted that the petitioners’ concern—that the supporting defendants might address weaknesses exposed by the contesting defendants—was relevant to the appropriate sequence of cross-examination.

Because the applicable provisions did not prescribe an order among co-defendants, the Court held that the sequence was a matter for judicial discretion.

In these circumstances, it found no prejudice in allowing the supporting defendants to cross-examine first, followed by the contesting defendants.

It directed defendants Nos. 5–8 to cross-examine the plaintiffs’ witnesses first, followed by defendants Nos. 1–4.