was admitted that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property as tenants. The other defendants filed their separate written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiffs, however, stating that previous owner of the property had informed that the plaintiffs were licensees over the suit property which was given to them for use for drying the paddy on small portion above the shops of Kirpal Singh and Gurdial Singh, i.e., defendants No. 4 and 5 in the suit. Defendants No. 4 and 13 produced D.W. 17-Om Parkash as a witness. In his examination-in-chief, he interalia stated that terrace of the building in dispute was being used by Waheguru Singh, Nanak Singh and others for drying their business articles as licensees. He was cross-examined by the plaintiffs. However, the defendants other than Nos. 4 and 13, who had produced the aforesaid witness, filed application seeking to cross-examine for the reason that in fact defendants No. 4 and 13 had connived with the plaintiffs and were supporting their case. The application having been rejected, two of the defendants, namely, defendants No. 8 and 16 have filed the present petition in this court.
