JUDGMENT : Manoj K. Tiwari, J. Heard Mr. S.K. Posti, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Posti, Advocate for the petitioners. 2. Petitioners are defendants in Original Suit No. 33 of 1991, which was filed by Mr. Sri Niwas and others (proforma respondents herein) in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haldwani, District Nainital. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court, against which plaintiffs to the suit filed a Civil Appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. The Appellate Court remanded the matter to the learned trial Court vide order dated 09.07.2003. 3. After remand of the matter, evidence of the parties was led and, after conclusion of evidence, the defendant nos. 1 to 8 and 10 in the suit moved an application seeking permission to cross examine the witness produced by newly impleaded defendant, namely, Mr. Baleshwar Prasad. The said application was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 04.04.2016. Defendant nos. 1 to 8 and 10 in the suit challenged the order dated 04.04.2016 by filing Civil Revision, which was registered as Civil Revision No. 43 of 2016, which was allowed by the Revisional Court i.e. 1st Additional District Judge Haldwani, District Nainital vide judgment and order dated 04.05.2017 and defendant nos. 1 to 8 and 10 were permitted to cross examine Mr. Baleshwar Prasad (D.W.1) and Mr. Bechan (D.W.2) subject to cost of Rs.1,000/-. 4. Pursuant to the order passed by Revisional Court, Mr. Baleshwar Prasad (D.W.1) and Mr. Bechan (D.W.2) were cross examined by defendant nos. 1 to 8 and 10. Thereafter, defendant Nos. 1 to 8 and 10 moved an application seeking permission to cross examine witnesses produced by Mr. Baleshwar Prasad (petitioner No. 2 herein), namely, Mr. Gama Prasad on the ground that there is conflict inter se between them and Mr. Baleshwar Prasad (petitioner No. 2 herein), therefore, his witness, Mr. Gama Prasad needs to be cross examined. The said application was rejected by learned trial court vide order dated 24.08.2017 on the ground that learned Revisional Court has granted permission to examine only two witnesses, namely, Mr. Baleshwar Prasad and Bechan, therefore, no third witness can be cross examined. The order passed by learned trial court was challenged by defendant Nos. 1 to 8 and 10 by filing Civil Revision No. 19 of 2018. Baleshwar Prasad and Bechan, therefore, no third witness can be cross examined. The order passed by learned trial court was challenged by defendant Nos. 1 to 8 and 10 by filing Civil Revision No. 19 of 2018. The Revisional Court i.e. learned 1st Additional District Judge, Halwani, District Nainital vide judgment and order dated 24.04.2018 has allowed the said revision and permitted defendant Nos. 1 to 8 and 10 to cross examine Mr. Gama Prasad. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioners have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. A short but important question that arises for consideration is whether a codefendant has right to cross examine the other defendant. No special provision is made in the Evidence Act for cross-examination of the co-accused's or co-defendant's witnesses. But the procedure to be adopted may be regulated by the well-known rule that no evidence should be received against any co-defendant or co-accused 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 interest was hostile to his own, or who has given evidence against him. If a co-defendant's interest is not hostile to that of the co-defendant, or if nothing has been said by the defendant to affect the interest of a co-defendant, there cannot be any right of cross-examination. 6. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri Mohamed Ziaulla Vs Mrs. Sorgra and another, 1997 SCCOnline(Kar) 70, while dealing with the similar question has held as under:- "6. It is undisputed that no special provision is made in the Evidence Act for cross examination of the co-accused or co-defendant's witnesses, the only relevant provision of law is Section 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act. Section 137 refers to examination-in-chief and cross examination of a witness by the adverse party. The examination of an adverse party is the cross examination. The question is who is an adverse party so far as the witness is concerned. The very object of cross-examination is to test the evidence. Dictionary of law by Curzon 4th Edition defines 'adversary' as witness who disappoints the party calling them i.e. they are unfavourable and hostile witnesses. The examination of an adverse party is the cross examination. The question is who is an adverse party so far as the witness is concerned. The very object of cross-examination is to test the evidence. Dictionary of law by Curzon 4th Edition defines 'adversary' as witness who disappoints the party calling them i.e. they are unfavourable and hostile witnesses. The new Webster Dictionary of English Language has explained the word 'adverse' as going in contrary direction; counter action; opposing, calamitous, unprosperious etc. 7. Section 137 specifically explains that the examination of a witness by the adverse party is cross examination. Section 138 of the Evidence Act refers to cross examination if the adverse party so desires after the witness is first examined in chief. These two sections of the Evidence Act make it abundantly clear that a party has a right of cross examining his adversary or his witness. 8. Section 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act do not specifically refer to cross examination of co-defendant's witnesses. But, the courts have to adopt a golden rule that no evidence shall be received against any co-defendant or co-accused 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 witness called by one whose case was adverse to his, or who has given evidence against him. If there is no dash of interest or if nothing has been said against the other party, there cannot be any right of cross-examination. A short but, interesting discussion is found in Sarkar's Evidence at Page 1342 13th Edition. Similar opinion is found in Principles and Digest of the Law of Evidence by M. Monir, Third Edition Page 1114." 7. A perusal of the impugned judgment dated 24.04.2018 reveals that learned Revisonal Court has recorded cogent reasons for permitting defendant No. 1 to 8 and 10 to cross examine Mr. Gama Prasad. Thus, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the said order. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. Since the said suit is pending for the last more than 28 years, therefore, learned trial court is directed to decide the suit as early as possible, preferably within nine months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. Since the said suit is pending for the last more than 28 years, therefore, learned trial court is directed to decide the suit as early as possible, preferably within nine months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Unnecessary adjournment to the parties shall be avoided.