JUDGMENT : Vivek Rusia, J. With the consent of the parties, present petition is heard finally. The petitioner has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 06/05/2015, by which his application under section 151 of C.P.C seeking permission to cross-examine defendant no. 1 has been rejected. 2. That respondent nos. 1 to 3 being plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, partition and possession of the suit property. In para 5 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that defendant no. 1 Ramaji has transferred the land being survey no. 166/2 area 4.807 hectors situated at Sindoda to defendant no. 5 Reena and further defendant no. 1 has mutated the land being survey no. 475 area 5.060 hectors in the name of Jayesh in the year 2009-10. Defendant no. 1 Ramji filed an affidavit by which, he has stated that plaintiff/defendant no. 2 and he himself are the real brothers and sisters. In para 4, he has stated that he is in exclusive possession of the suit land and the plaintiff and other defendants are not in possession and in cross-examination, he has denied the fact of mutation in favour of Reena, Jayesh and Nageshwar. In view of the above statement, defendant no. 5 (Smt. Reena)/present petitioner who is daughter-in-law of Ramaji/defendant no. 1 filed an application under section 151 of C.P.C alleging that there is collision between the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 and because of which, they want to her take share in the suit property by way of the suit, therefore, she may be permitted to cross-examine defendant no. 1. 3. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs and by the impugned order dated 06/05/2015, learned Civil Judge has rejected the application on the ground that there is no counter claim by defendant no. 5 and there is no provision in the law for cross-examination of one defendant by another defendant. 4. Shri Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the trial Court has wrongly rejected the application on the ground that there is no provision in the law to cross-examine one defendant by another defendant. 5 and there is no provision in the law for cross-examination of one defendant by another defendant. 4. Shri Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the trial Court has wrongly rejected the application on the ground that there is no provision in the law to cross-examine one defendant by another defendant. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgment delivered in the case of M/s. Ennen Castings (P) Ltd v. M.M. Sundaresh and others reported in AIR 2003 Karnataka 293 and Sadhu Singh v. Sait Narain Singh Sewadar and others reported in AIR 1978 Punjab & Haryana 319, in which, it has been held that under sections 137/138 of the Evidence Act, co-defendant can be permitted to cross-examine another co-defendant, if evidence is adverse to him. Section 138 of the Evidence Act allows the right of cross-examination of one to each other party. 5. Shri D.S. Kale, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in his suit, the defendant cannot be permitted to settle their inter-se disputes. It is further submitted that defendant no. 5 should file counter claim or fresh suit against defendant no. 1, if their interest are in the conflict. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. That is to decide the issue involved in this petition. The provisions of Sections 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act is required to be examined for ready reference. S. 137. The examination of a witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief. The examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination. The Examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross-examination by the party who called him, shall be called his re-examination. S. 138. Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief. The examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and, if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter. 8. The examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and, if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter. 8. Reading of the Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, makes it clear that the first step is the examination of a witness by the party, who calls him, which is called as examination "in-chief and the next step is cross-examination of a witness already put to examination-in-chief by the adverse party and after the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination is over, there is scope for re-examination of a witness on being called for by a party subsequent to cross-examination by the party, who had called him,. If we look to the provision contained in Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, this provision makes it clear that a witness shall be first examined in chief (then if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if a party calling him so desires) re-examined. A conjoint reading of both the above provisions make it clear that there are three stages of examination of a witness i.e. (1) examination-in-chief, (2) cross-examination by the adversary party and (3) re-examination by the party, who had called such a witness after the cross-examination. 9. From the bare reading of Section 137 of the Evidence Act, it is clear that the adverse party has right to cross-examine the witness and Sections 137 and 138 enable him to cross-examine the witness. 10. The importance of the cross-examination has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465 . Relevant paras 24 to 30 of this judgment are reproduced below : "24. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of M.P. v. Chintaman Sadashiva Vaishampayan, AIR 1961 SC 1623 , held that the rules of natural justice, require that a party must be given the opportunity to adduce all relevant evidence upon which he relies, and further that, the evidence of the opposite party should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party. Not providing the said opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, would violate the principles of natural justice. Not providing the said opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, would violate the principles of natural justice. (See also: Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882 ; Meenglas Tea Estate v. Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719 ; M/s. Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Gangadhar & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 708 ; New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia and Anr., AIR 2008 SC 876 ; Rachpal Singh & Ors. v. Gurmit Singh & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 2448 ; Biecco Lawrie & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., AIR 2010 SC 142 ; and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, AIR 2010 SC 3131 ). 25. In Lakshman Exports Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, (2005) 10 SCC 634 , this Court, while dealing with a case under the Central Excise Act, 1944, considered a similar issue i.e. permission with respect to the cross-examination of a witness. In the said case, the assessee had specifically asked to be allowed to cross-examine the representatives of the firms concern, to establish that the goods in question had been accounted for in their books of accounts, and that excise duty had been paid. The Court held that such a request could not be turned down, as the denial of the right to cross-examine, would amount to a denial of the right to be heard i.e. audi alteram partem. 26. In New India Assurance Company Ltd., v. Nusli Neville Wadia & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 876 ; this Court considered a case under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and held as follows :- "If some facts are to be proved by the landlord, indisputably the occupant should get an opportunity to cross-examine. The witness who intends to prove the said fact has the right to cross-examine the witness. This may not be provided by under the statute, but it being a part of the principle of natural justice should be held to be indefeasible right." (Emphasis added) In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the right of cross-examination is an integral part of the principles of natural justice. 27. This may not be provided by under the statute, but it being a part of the principle of natural justice should be held to be indefeasible right." (Emphasis added) In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the right of cross-examination is an integral part of the principles of natural justice. 27. In K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 273 , this Court held that, in order to sustain a complaint of the violation of the principles of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity of cross-examination, it must be established that some prejudice has been caused to the appellant by the procedure followed. A party, who does not want to controvert the veracity of the evidence on record, or of the testimony gathered behind his back, cannot expect to succeed in any subsequent grievance raised by him, stating that no opportunity of cross-examination was provided to him, specially when the same was not requested, and there was no dispute regarding the veracity of the statement. (See also: Union of India v. P.K. Roy, AIR 1968 SC 850 ; and Channabasappa Basappa Happali v. State of Mysore, AIR 1972 SC 32 ). In Transmission Corpn. of A.P. Ltd. v. Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill, this Court held: (SCC p 80 para 9) "9. In order to establish that the cross-examination is necessary, the consumer has to make out a case for the same. Merely stating that the statement of an officer is being utilised for the purpose of adjudication would not be sufficient in all cases. If an application is made requesting for grant of an opportunity to cross-examine any official, the same has to be considered by the adjudicating authority who shall have to either grant the request or pass a reasoned order if he chooses to reject the application. In that event an adjudication being concluded, it shall be certainly open to the consumer to establish before the Appellate Authority as to how he has been prejudiced by the refusal to grant an opportunity to cross-examine any official". 28. The meaning of providing a reasonable opportunity to show cause against an action proposed to be taken by the government, is that the government servant is afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the charges, on the basis of which an inquiry is held. 28. The meaning of providing a reasonable opportunity to show cause against an action proposed to be taken by the government, is that the government servant is afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the charges, on the basis of which an inquiry is held. The government servant should be given an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence. He can do so only when he is told what the charges against him are. He can therefore, do so by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him. The object of supplying statements is that, the government servant will be able to refer to the previous statements of the witnesses proposed to be examined against him. Unless the said statements are provided to the government servant, he will not be able to conduct an effective and useful cross-examination. 29. In Rajiv Arora v. Union of India & Ors., this Court held: (SCC p 310 Para 13, 14) "13. Effective cross-examination could have been done as regards the correctness or otherwise of the report, if the contents of them were proved. The principles analogous to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act as also the principles of natural justice demand that the maker of the report should be examined, save and except in cases where the facts are admitted or the witnesses are not available for cross-examination or similar situation. 14. The High Court in its impugned judgment proceeded to consider the issue on a technical plea, namely, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant by such non-examination. If the basic principles of law have not been complied with or there has been a gross violation of the principles of natural justice, the High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction of judicial review." 30. The aforesaid discussion makes it evident that, not only should the opportunity of cross-examination be made available, but it should be one of effective cross-examination, so as to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice. In the absence of such an opportunity, it cannot be held that the matter has been decided in accordance with law, as cross-examination is an integral part and parcel of the principles of natural justice." 11. In the case of M/s. Ennen Castings (P) Ltd (supra), the High Court of Karnataka has held as under : "11. In the absence of such an opportunity, it cannot be held that the matter has been decided in accordance with law, as cross-examination is an integral part and parcel of the principles of natural justice." 11. In the case of M/s. Ennen Castings (P) Ltd (supra), the High Court of Karnataka has held as under : "11. Therefore, it is very clear from the aforesaid passages that it is the settled law that no evidence should be received against one who had no opportunity of testing it by cross-examination ; as it would be unjust and unsafe not to allow a co-accused or co-defendant to cross-examine a witness called by one whose case was adverse to him, or who has given evidence against. If there is no conflict of interest, such an opportunity need not be given. Therefore, the condition precedent for giving an opportunity to a defendant-respondent to cross-examine a co-respondent or a defendant is either from the pleadings of the parties or in the evidence, there should exist conflict of the interest between them. Once it is demonstrated that their interest is not common and there is a conflict of interest and evidence has been adduced, affecting the interest of the co-defendant/co-respondents, then before the court could act on that evidence, the person against whom the evidence is given should have an opportunity to cross-examine the said witness, so that ultimately truth emerges on the basis of which the court can act. Under these circumstances, there is no substance in the contentions of respondents Nos. 1, 4 and 5 that a co-respondent has 'no right to cross-examine the other respondent." 12. Therefore, in view of the above provisions and the law laid down in the case of M/s. Ennen Castings (P) Ltd and Sadhu Singh (supra) there is provisions under sections 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act where the parties arrayed as defendant in the suit have right to cross-examination against each other, if they are adversely to each other, therefore, the trial Court has erred in law while rejecting the application on the ground that there is no provision in the law. 13. That the plaintiffs in their suit have stated that defendant no. 1 has mutated certain land in the name of the defendant no. 13. That the plaintiffs in their suit have stated that defendant no. 1 has mutated certain land in the name of the defendant no. 5/present petitioner and in her written statement, it is stated that she is the owner and her name has rightly been mutated in the revenue record. The most important fact in this case is that defendant no. 1 is the father-in-law of defendant no. 5 and defendant nos. 3 is the son of defendant no. 1 and husband of defendant no. 5 There may be inter-se dispute between defendant no. 1, 3 and defendants no. 4, 5, but so far as present suit is concerned, on the basis of the pleadings in written statement and evidence of defendant no. 1, findings can be recorded adverse to the interest of defendant no. 5, therefore, she has right to cross-examine defendant no. 1, therefore, the trial Court has committed error while rejecting the application. 14. Accordingly, present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 06/05/2015 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to give an opportunity to defendant no. 5 to cross-examine defendant no. 1 in accordance with law.