Michael J Brito vs John Emanuel Lawerence Brito Since Dead ... on 24 February, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 4]

Karnataka High Court

Michael J Brito vs John Emanuel Lawerence Brito Since Dead ... on 24 February, 2010

Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala

 _ R/A No.60/1;"

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT  ».,

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY iii.  ' 
BEFORE    _ M   ¢ ¢
THE HONBLE DRJUSTICE K.  

WRIT PETITION NOS. 5551/2010'E;--5S5Z'454'/20}O.':TO:M;'O~FOI
BETWEEN:  J  T  

1 MRMICHAELJDRITO   _  
S/O LATE BASIL FRANCIS BRITG 
AGED ABOUT 68_YEARS..  .  ' --
R/A.NO.60/1, V . . I
COLES ROAD;  V .

FRAZER TO);/VN"   ~ 
BANGALOREg~5~f__ 

2 MRSALOMA BR1TO'l_  _
W/O.M1'CH;->\ELJ'B.}RITO  _
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS"  
R/ANO.60';'A;," _ ' 2 
COLES ROAD; _ -

V FRAZER TOWN 
" " ~BAN'-GALsf9RE~5

3 
W/O .§&1ICI~ﬂ'_xEL'  BRITO
AGED'ABOUT._E4 YEARS

 COLES ROAD,
'T   -- --. FRAZER TOWN.
 _ v~EAAjGA_LORE--5

 PETITICNERS

 



 

 

(By Sri S R KRISHNAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 JOHN EMANUEL LAWERENCE BR!-TO--. D 
SINCE DEAD BY LR   'J S
MRSGRACY BRITO
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS , _

W/O.LATE MAJOR J E L   ' _
R/A NO.8 (OLD N059) VVHEELERROAD '-
2ND CROSS, B-ANGALORE~56OQ.05'v._ 

2 THE COMMISSIONER   _     
BANGALORE MAHANAGARAPALIRE  ' _ 
NRSQUAREJC.ROAD,=""-Q" " 1.. 
EANGALORE~5.6Ooo:2 ' I   

  _  _    RESPONDENTS

THESE ,W;Ps.._ FILEF}; PRAYING TC}"'QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER AT ANX-L D'I'.5f~";y.2_.2«0IOPASSED INOS 8412 /1997 BY THE
ADDITIONAL 'aCI'i'Y 'CIVIL~«..JUDGnE,_. BANGALORE (CCH NO.9)
ALLOWING THE 2:, APPLICATIONS DT. 27.1.2010 FILED BY
RESPONDENT NO_..41/RLAiNTi.;%*E.G.AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS

ALL THE 4 APPLICATIONS."

  .vA:P1'f_'.TI'1'IONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARIRG fI_'HIS_DAi',  COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

S ;*3¢titiOhers/defendant nos. 1 to 3 in O.S.NO. 8412/1997 T.4f"'1ﬁ3"£i3.é"0f:,ACfditiO1'1al City Civil Judge, Bangalore, {CCH-9] are the witnesses. In this regard, Iearned counsel for the petitioners cited two decisions reported in 1995[5] [N.M.Viswanath vs. B.V.Narjundappa, by LRS & 2009 Supreme Court 1604 [ Vadircg Naggappca.Veff1eI_coft"s. Chanel Prabhakar Gogate].

3. The contention of thee: fj\I':n.5el'§ for the petitioners as to why the p1aivr1'tif*f' --..DW--1 and DW--2 and what questions th.ey want' :'»'ti'i'.scIosed in the afﬁdavits holds no if :.q:uestio'os'afeftiisclosed, the very purpose of the defeated. Cross-

examination 'truthfulness of the statements made by a 3.1.1'e§&affiiﬁation~in-chief. The objects of cross--exami1j1--ation ai"e._: ' ~ [IA]: v .. _'Io_Aciesat.r:o'y'V or weaken the evidentiary value of theKv_ittness_"of adversary; I2] facts in favour of the cross» :".v4.4eX.aia2ini.ng Vviawyefs client from the mouth of the of the adversary party;

I' In the result, dismissed.

Pr/-

the writ petitions fail and they are hereby 3&3"

.110 »,r*'"v$ z*'°"$

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court