Karnataka High Court
Sri. S. P. Thomas vs Ms. Cathernamma on 26 May, 2023
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
WP No. 51287 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 51287 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. S. P. THOMAS
SON OF LATE SRI. M. C. SAMUEL,
AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS
RESIDING AT DEVADHARU FARM
ODRAPALAYAM, HORAMAVU AGARA
BANGALORE - 560 043.
SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY HIS L.R.
1(a) MR BINU SAMUEL THOMAS
S/O LATE S P THOMAS,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT GF7, GREENERY APARTMENTS,
16 PLAIN STREET,
BENGALURU 560 001.
2. DR. BINI GEORGE
Digitally signed WIFE OF DR. GEORGE PAUL,
by VANDANA S DAUGHTER OF SRI. S. P. THOMAS,
Location: High AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
Court of RESIDING AT F-72, BRINDAVAN COLONY,
Karnataka FAIRLANDS, SALEM-16, TAMILNADU,
REPRESENTED BY GENERAL POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.
3. MR. ROY CHANDY THOMAS
HUSBAND OF LATE MRS. BEENA CHANDY THOMAS
AND SON OF K.C. THOMAS,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DEVADHARU FARM,
ODRAPALAYAM, HORAMAVU, AGARA,
BANGALORE-560 043.
-2-
WP No. 51287 of 2017
4. SRI. SUNIL R. DAVID
SON OF SRI. T. DAVID,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.201, EBONY WOODS,
9 ARTILLERY ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 008.
5. SRI. M. M. THOMAS
SON OF LATE MATHAI,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 16, DIYA RESIDENCY,
V.B.C. EXTENTION, 1 E MAIN,
HORAMAVU, KALYAN NAGAR, P.O.,
BANGALORE-560 043.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SANJANA RAO.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MS. CATHERNAMMA
WIFE OF LATE DAVIDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS,
2. MR. ANTONY SWAMY
SON OF LATE DAVIDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
3. MS. AROGYA MARY
DAUGHTER OF LATE DAVIDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
4. MS. BALAMMA
DAUGHTER OF LATE DAVIDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
5. MR. KANIKARAJ
SON OF LATE DAVIDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
6. MS. STANISLAS MARY
WIFE OF LATE ALFANS,
DAUGHTER OF LATE DAVIDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
-3-
WP No. 51287 of 2017
7. MS. KAMALA D/O LATE DAVIDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
8. MR. THOMAS SON OF LATE DAVIDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
9. MR. SAGAI RAJ SON OF LATE DAVIDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
(SINCE DEACSED, REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 8
AND RESPONDENT NO. 10 HEREIN)
( AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED: 24.06.2021)
10. MR. BHAKTHINATHAN
SON OF LATE DAVIDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R- 1 TO 10 ARE ALL RESIDENTS OF
CHALLKERE (AMRUTHANAGAR) VILLAGE,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
11. MR. GOVINDARAJ SON OF LATE ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.112,
AMRUTHNAGAR, (CHALLAKERE),
KALYANNAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560 043.
12. MR. DAMODAR REDDY
SON OF KRISHNA REDDY, MAJOR,
RESIDING AT 1ST MAIN ROAD,
CHIKKATAYAPPA REDDY LAYOUT,
OPPOSITE BANGALORE CITY COLLEGE,
CHELLAKERE, BANGALORE-560 043.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.NAGA REDDY, ADV. FOR R-12
R-1, R-2, R-4 to R-8, R-10, R-11 ARE SERVED AND
UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED: 24.06.2021, NOTICE TO R-
3 IS H/S ; VIDE ORDER DATED: 24.06.2021, R-1 TO R-8 & R-10 ARE
TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED R-9)
-4-
WP No. 51287 of 2017
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 12.10.2017 PASSED DURING THE COURSE OF
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT WITNESS NO.1 REJECTING
THE MARKING OF DOCUMENT ADMITTED BY THE WITNESS IN
O.S.414/2009 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VIII CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALOREK AT ANNEX-A;
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 12.10.2017 contained in the deposition of DW-1, whereby the trial court refused to mark the document viz., Google Map confronted to DW-1 in cross-examination by the petitioners - plaintiffs in O.S.No.414/2009.
2. Heard leaned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. The material on record discloses that the petitioners - plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property and the suit is being contested by the respondents - defendants. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the legal representative of plaintiff No.1, who is petitioner No.1(a) - Mr.Binu Samual Thomas was examined as -5- WP No. 51287 of 2017 PW-1 and documentary evidence were adduced on their behalf. On behalf of the respondents - defendants, respondent No.12 - defendant No.12 was examined as DW-1. During the course of cross-examination of DW-1 by the petitioners - plaintiffs, a document styled as 'Google Map' was confronted to him and DW-1 admitted that the said document was a google map. However, when the learned counsel for the petitioners - plaintiffs questioned / asked DW-1 to indicate the location of Sy.No.129 in the said google map, the leaned trial Judge refused to permit the petitioners
- plaintiffs' counsel to ask the said question since the said document was not marked / admitted in evidence as an exhibit. Accordingly, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order refusing to mark the google map as an exhibit on behalf of the plaintiffs and refusing to permit the petitioners to question DW-1 as regards the said google map, aggrieved by which, the petitioners - plaintiffs are before this Court by way of the present petition.
4. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the interest of the petitioners - plaintiffs would be safeguarded if the petitioners - plaintiffs are permitted to produce and mark the said google map during the course of further evidence of PW-1 by -6- WP No. 51287 of 2017 recalling him for further evidence before the trial court. It is also submitted that pursuant to the said google map being marked in evidence by PW-1, liberty may also be reserved in favour of the petitioners - plaintiffs to confront the said marked document to DW- 1 and / or other witnesses by recalling them and put necessary questions in this regard to them.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners - plaintiffs, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions as regards the said google map, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by modifying the impugned order and by permitting the petitioners - plaintiffs to produce and mark the said google map as an exhibit through PW-1 by recalling him along with other evidence, if any, sought to be adduced by them. Liberty is also reserved in favour of the petitioners - plaintiffs to confront the said google map marked through PW-1 pursuant to this order to DW-1 and / or other witnesses during cross-examination and also put necessary questions in this regard to DW-1. It is needless to state that the respondents - defendants would also entitled to cross-examine PW-1 and / other witnesses of -7- WP No. 51287 of 2017 the plaintiffs with reference to the said google map and also adduce additional evidence in support of their defence. Since the suit is of the year 2009, the trial court is also directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 21.12.2023.
6. Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srl.