ORDER : C.L. SONI, J. 1. The petitioner who is defendant No. 3 in the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 herein being Special Civil Suit No. 329 of 2008 has come with the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30.12.2014 passed by the learned 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad Rural, Mirzapur below application Exh.85 2. The application Exh.85 was preferred by the respondent No. 17 defendant No. 17 seeking to strike out the cross-examination of the petitioner taken by the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1. Learned Judge allowed such application by impugned order and has struck out the cross-examination of the petitioner taken by the respondent No. 1. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Patel appearing for the petitioner submitted that once the cross-examination of the petitioner was allowed to be taken, there was no question of striking out the cross-examination taken by the plaintiff at the instance of the defendant No. 17. Learned advocate Mr. Patel submitted that in the context of the provision of Section 137 and Section 138 of the Evidence Act, learned Judge shall require to consider the evidence, if already there by way of cross-examination and even if the petitioner was considered to be not party adversary to the plaintiff, Section 137 and Section 138 of the Evidence Act could not have been relied to strike out the cross-examination of the petitioner. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Patel submitted that, there is no specific provision made in the Civil Procedure Code for striking out the cross-examination or deletion of cross-examination and therefore, learned judge has exceeded in his jurisdiction to strike out of the cross-examination of the petitioner taken by the plaintiff. Learned advocate Mr. Patel has relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sh. Kavi Ghei vs. Rohit Vaid in I.A. No. 4522 of 2012 in CS (OS) No. 416 of 2004 rendered on 03.05.2012. 5. As against the above arguments, learned advocate Ms. Trusha Patel for contesting defendants/respondent No. 17 submitted that learned Judge since found that the petitioner is not adversary to the plaintiff, there was no question of taking any cross-examination by the plaintiff. Learned advocate Mr. 5. As against the above arguments, learned advocate Ms. Trusha Patel for contesting defendants/respondent No. 17 submitted that learned Judge since found that the petitioner is not adversary to the plaintiff, there was no question of taking any cross-examination by the plaintiff. Learned advocate Mr. Patel submitted that as per the provision of Section 137 of the Evidence Act, only a adverse party is entitled to take cross-examination of the witness but in the present case, the defendant No. 3 petitioner is not adverse party to the plaintiff. Learned advocate Ms. Patel submitted that the cross-examination of the petitioner was taken by the plaintiff in absence of the defendant No. 17. When the defendant No. 17, and when came to know about the cross-examination taken by the plaintiff who was not entitled to take cross-examination of the petitioner, the defendant No. 17 moved an application pointing out that the plaintiff was not entitled to take cross-examination of the petitioner and learned Judge having found that Section 137 and Section 138 of the Evidence Act do not permit cross-examination of the party/witness who is not adverse to the party who wants cross-examination, committed no error in ordering to strike out the cross-examination of the petitioner taken by the plaintiff and therefore, the Court may not interfere in the impugned order which is passed by the learned Judge in exercise of his discretionary powers. Learned advocate Mr. Patel has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Hussenna Hasanali Pulavwala vs. Sabbirbhai Hasanali Pulavwala, 1981 GLH 230 and in the case of Tulsidas Girdharlal vs. Shantilal Karsandas, 1985 GLH 934 . 6. The Court having heard learned advocates finds that it is not possible by the petitioner that he is not adverse party to the plaintiff. It appears that the defendant No. 17 has taken cross-examination of the petitioner. The plaintiff who has parallel or commonality of interest would not be entitled to take the cross-examination of the petitioner. 7. The fact that only petitioner has filed the present petition making grievance about striking out of his cross-examination taken by the plaintiff shows that, he is in support of the plaintiff and his interest in the suit is parallel to the interest of the plaintiff. 7. The fact that only petitioner has filed the present petition making grievance about striking out of his cross-examination taken by the plaintiff shows that, he is in support of the plaintiff and his interest in the suit is parallel to the interest of the plaintiff. It cannot be said that the petitioner is in any way aggrieved by the impugned order and infact at his instance, interference in the impugned order is not required. Learned advocate Mr. Vijay Patel for the petitioner however submitted that once the cross-examination was already taken by the plaintiff, there is no question of removing/deleting/striking out of such cross-examination and at the best, at the time of deciding the suit, the trial Court may decide the relevancy of the evidence given by the cross-examination. Learned advocate Mr. Patel also submitted that there is no specific Provision made in the Civil Procedure Code for striking out or for deletion of the cross-examination and learned Judge has also not referred as to whether the impugned order is made in exercise of inherent powers. The Court finds that when the prayer sought in the application preferred by the defendant No. 17, was allowed, learned Judge could be said to have exercised inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code though there is no specific mention of such provisions in the impugned order. 8. In the case of Hussena Hasanali Pulavwala vs. Sabbirbhai Hasanali Pulavwala, 1981 GLH 230, the cross-examination of one of the defendants was taken in absence of the answering defendants, and it was held that in the context of Section 137 of the Evidence Act, the cross-examination of the party who was not adversary to the party who was permitted to take cross-examination was wrongly permitted that too in absence of the aggrieved defendant and learned Judge when found that allowing to take such cross-examination was not in consonance with the provision of Section 137 of the Evidence Act was justified in the exercise of inherent powers for deletion of or striking out the cross-examination, and no interference was made in exercise of powers under Section 115 of the Code. 9. In the case before the Delhi High Court relied on by Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, facts situation were different and cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. 10. 9. In the case before the Delhi High Court relied on by Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, facts situation were different and cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. 10. Present is the case where the plaintiff was not entitled to take cross-examination of the petitioner. However, he was allowed to take cross-examination of the petitioner and later on when the defendant No. 17 found that the cross-examination of the petitioner was allowed in his absence and when he pointed [out that the petitioner was not adverse party to the plaintiff and there was no question of allowing the cross-examination of the petitioner by the plaintiff, learned Judge in exercise of his inherent powers, passed impugned order for striking out the cross-examination of the petitioner taken by the plaintiff which is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In view of the above, the petition is rejected. Notice is discharged. Interim-relief stands vacated.