ORDER : The defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(c) and defendant No.7 in O.S.No.6187/2002 on the file of the I Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, have filed this writ petition, challenging an order dated 04.01.2016, in terms of which, an application filed by the defendant No.9 to direct the defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(c) and defendant No.7 not to cross-examine DW.5 or any attesting witness, touching upon the validity of the Will dated 31.10.1998, was allowed. 2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court in O.S.No.6187/2002. 3. The suit in O.S.No.6187/2002 was filed for partition and separate possession in respect of land bearing Sy.No.57. The short facts required for the purpose of consideration of this writ petition are that, the plaintiffs were daughters from the second wife of the deceased - defendant No.1. They claimed that the suit property was an ancestral property held by the father of the defendant No.1, Lakshmaiah Reddy, who died on 03.10.2001. The plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant No.2 are the grand daughters of Lakshmaiah Reddy. They claimed that Lakshmaiah Reddy had executed a Will dated 31.10.1998, in terms of which, the suit property fell to the share of deceased - defendant No.1. They claimed that defendant No.1 did not have any sons and that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant No.2 were her only legal heirs. The defendant Nos.5 and 9 were sisters of the defendant No.1, while the defendant No.7 was the second wife of the defendant No.1. 4. After the suit was filed, another suit was filed in O.S.No.7239/2004 by defendant Nos.3 and 4 (being the children of defendant No.1 from his third wife Smt. Padmavathi) on the file of the VI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru ('CCH. No.44'), against the defendant Nos.1, 2, 5, 7, 9 and others. In the said suit, a common written statement was filed by Smt. Gowramma (wife of Sri.Lakshmaiah Reddy), defendant Nos.1, 2, 5, 7, 9 and plaintiff No.2, admitting that Lakshmaiah Reddy had executed a Will dated 31.10.1998 bequeathing his properties in favour of his wife Smt. Gowramma and three children namely, defendant Nos.1, 5 and 9 in O.S.No.6187/2002. 5. The Trial Court framed issues in O.S.No.6187/2002. 5. The Trial Court framed issues in O.S.No.6187/2002. The issue relevant for the purpose of this writ petition is extracted below:- "Whether they further prove that the Lakshmaiah Reddy grandfather of the plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and defendant No.2 executed a Will dated 31.10.1998 and in the said Will the suit schedule property fallen to the share of the defendant No.1, wherein the plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and defendant No.2 are the grand daughters of Lakshmaiah Reddy and daughters of defendant No.1?" 6. In order to prove the said issue, the defendant No.5 was examined as DW.5. The defendant No.9 filed an application that the legal representatives of the defendant No.1 and defendant No.7 should not cross-examine DW.5 about the lawful execution of the Will dated 31.10.1998. The Trial Court noticed that the defendant Nos.1, 5 and 7 and 9 had already admitted the execution of the Will by filing their written statement in O.S.No.7239/2004, which was marked as Ex.D21. The Trial Court therefore, held that defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(c) and defendant No.7 shall not cross-examine DW.5 or any other attesting witness touching upon the validity of the Will dated 31.10.1998. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(c) and defendant No.7 have filed this writ petition. 8. The learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(c) and defendant No.7 submitted that once an issue was framed by the Trial Court, the issue had to be proved to the satisfaction of the Court and every person, who was arrayed as defendant, was entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, who were examined in proof of the said issue. He submitted that since the defendant No.5 was examined as DW.5, the other defendants do not loose right to cross-examine DW.5. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in P.Satish Pai vs. B. Yeshwanth Shenoy and others [ILR 2010 KAR 4022] and contended that right of a co-defendant to cross-examine one of the defendants exists if there is conflict of interest between them. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for defendant No.9 submits that the deceased - defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.5, 7 and 9 have already admitted the valid execution of the Will and therefore, they cannot cross-examine DW.5, who had propounded the Will dated 31.10.1998. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for defendant No.9 submits that the deceased - defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.5, 7 and 9 have already admitted the valid execution of the Will and therefore, they cannot cross-examine DW.5, who had propounded the Will dated 31.10.1998. He further contended that the attempt of all of these defendants was to prove the Will dated 31.10.1998 and therefore, they cannot resile from the said fact and cross-examine DW.5, which would act counter productive to their case. He further submitted that the defendant Nos.1, 5, 7 and 9 were clearly estopped by record from claiming to the contrary and therefore, the Trial Court was justified in restraining the defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(c) and defendant No.7 from cross-examining DW.5 or any other attesting witness touching upon the valid execution of the Will. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. The dispute that can be discerned from the facts placed on record is that the plaintiffs are the daughters from the second wife of the deceased - defendant No.1. The defendant No.7 is the first wife of the deceased - defendant No.1, from whom he had three children namely defendant Nos.1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) and defendant No.10 is the third wife of the deceased - defendant No.1. The properties in question were undoubtedly the properties held by the late Lakshmaiah Reddy, who had three children namely deceased - defendant Nos.1, 5 and 9. The said Lakshmaiah Reddy is stated to have executed the Will dated 31.10.1998 bequeathing his properties in favour of his wife Smt. Gowramma and his three children referred above. After Lakshmaiah Reddy died, the children of the deceased - defendant No.1 were up in arms against each other to claim a share in the property of Lakshmaiah Reddy. While the plaintiffs in O.S.No.6187/2002 staked their claim to the property that fell to the share of deceased - defendant No.1 under the Will dated 31.10.1998, the defendant Nos.5 and 9 also claimed their share as per the Will dated 31.10.1998. It was in this context, the Trial Court framed an issue "whether the plaintiffs prove the Will dated 31.10.1998 executed by the Lakshmaiah Reddy in favour of the deceased - defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.5, 7 and 9. It was in this context, the Trial Court framed an issue "whether the plaintiffs prove the Will dated 31.10.1998 executed by the Lakshmaiah Reddy in favour of the deceased - defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.5, 7 and 9. It is a matter of record that the defendant Nos.1, 5, 7 and 9 had already filed their written statement in O.S.No.7239/2004 admitting the execution of the Will dated 31.10.1998, which was marked as Ex.D21 in the evidence recorded in O.S.No.6187/2002. The defendant Nos.1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) along with their mother namely, defendant No.7, who perhaps were apprehensive that the property that fell to the share of defendant No.1 would have to be divided amongst plaintiffs as well as themselves and the defendant No.10 seem to have come up with an idea to disown the Will dated 31.10.1998. It was in this context, the defendant No.9 filed an application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, claiming that the defendant Nos.1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) as well as defendant No.7 should not cross-examine DW.5 or any other attesting witness touching upon the valid execution of the Will dated 31.10.1998. This application was justified as all of these defendants had expressly admitted the execution of the Will dated 31.10.1998. Therefore, they could not backtrack from the situation and cross-examine the DW.5 to demonstrate that the Will dated 31.10.1998 was not executed by Lakshmaiah Reddy. Doing so would definitely amount to allowing the defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(c) and defendant No.7 to outgrow the shoes of deceased - defendant No.1. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court was perfectly justified in restraining the defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(c) and defendant No.7 from cross-examining DW.5 or any other witnesses regarding the valid execution of the Will dated 31.10.1998. There is no error in the appreciation of the documents as well as the evidence on record to deny the said defendants the opportunity to cross-examine DW.5 and other witnesses. 12. Hence, the writ petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed. However, it is open for any of the other defendants to establish that the Will dated 31.10.1998 was not lawfully executed. 13. It is noticed that two suits are filed between the same parties, which are pending before two Courts. 12. Hence, the writ petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed. However, it is open for any of the other defendants to establish that the Will dated 31.10.1998 was not lawfully executed. 13. It is noticed that two suits are filed between the same parties, which are pending before two Courts. Thus, in order to ensure that there is no conflict of judgment, the suit filed in O.S.No.6187/2002 which is presently pending before the I Addl. City Civil Judge and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is ordered to be transferred to VI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru ('CCH. No.44'), where O.S.No.7239/2004 is pending consideration. The VI Addl. City Civil Judge and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru ('CCH. No.44'), is directed to hear both the suits together and may either pass a common or separate judgments as per its discretion. Since the suit is filed in the year 2004, it is appropriate to direct the Trial Court to expedite either of the suits depending upon the stage, which shall not be later than one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.