www.vakilsaheb.org
10. The purpose of cross–examination is to test the veracity of the testimony of a witness. Under issue No. 4, reproduced above, it is relevant to find out whether Hazoori service of the last Mohatmim is an essential ingredient or not for becoming eligible for appointment as a Mohatmim of the Gurdwara. On this particular point the stands taken by Sadhu Singh, defendant-petitioner, on the one side and the remaining defendants on the other, (www.vakilsaheb.org) are not identical. Their stands on this point are rather contradictory. It cannot be said that the point of Hazoori service has no relevancy for the purpose of a just decision of the suit. Parties arrayed as defendants in a suit, having taken contradictory stands on a relevant and material issue, shall be adversary to each other and entitled to exercise their right of cross–examination against each other. Sadhu Singh, defendant–petitioner, therefore, had a right to cross–examine his co–defendant Inder Singh and it was wrongly disallowed by the trial Court. (www.vakilsaheb.org)
11. In the result, the present revision is accepted and the impugned order set aside. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
12. Revision allowed. (www.vakilsaheb.org)