Karnataka High Court
Smt R Shantha Bai vs G Parthasarathy on 22 April, 2013
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A. N.Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A. N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 18102/2013 (GM-CPC)
AND
WRIT PETITION NOS: 18335-337/2013 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. R. SHANTHA BAI,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
W/O. LATE RAMACHANDRA RAO,
NO.8, "GANGA NILAYAM",
1ST FLOOR, EASTERN SIDE,
10TH LMAIN ROAD, VASANTHNAGAR,
BANGALORE-560052.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H C SHIVARAMU, ADV.,)
AND:
G. PARTHASARATHY,
AGED 46 YEARS,
S/O. S.GOVINDARAJAN MUDALIAR,
NO.8, "GANGA NILAYAM"
GROUND FLOOR, 10TH MAIN ROAD,
VASANTHANGAR,
BANGALORE-560052.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. C M POONACHA, ADV., FOR M/S. LEXPLEXUS,
ADVS.,)
2
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.19.4.2010, 28.7.2010
AND COMMON ORDER DT.6.3.2013 (ANNX-D, G & P)
PASSED BY THE ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE
(CCH NO.25), O.S.NO.1162/2007.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The respondent has filed O.S.No.1162/2007 against the petitioner to pass a decree for ejectment from the suit premises. Suit having been instituted on 09.02.2007, upon service of summons, petitioner having entered appearance through a learned advocate, filed written statement on 31.05.2007. Issues having been raised, trial has taken place. W.P.No. 8452/2010 filed by the petitioner was allowed on 16.04.2010 and she was permitted to cross-examine PW1. In pursuance thereof, PW1 was cross-examined on 19.04.2010. However, adjournment for further cross-examination was refused. I.A.No.10 filed by the petitioner to grant opportunity to further cross-examine was rejected on 3 28.07.2010. It is to be noted that the evidence of defendant had been adduced and completed by the date W.P.No. 8452/2010 was heard and allowed on 16.04.2010. Plaintiff having filed W.P.Nos.4382/2011 and 6017/2011, the proceeding of the suit got adjourned. However, the said writ petitions were disposed of on 26.09.2011 directing the trial Court to consider the legality of the document - Ex.D15 with regard to stamp duty and pass necessary orders. At that stage, defendant filed I.A.Nos. 16 and 17 to re-open the case and grant permission for further cross- examination of PW1. The trial Court taking into consideration the order passed on I.A.No.10 dated 28.07.2010 dismissed both the applications on 06.03.2013. Assailing the said order, these writ petitions have been filed.
2. Heard Sri. H.C.Shivaramu, learned advocate for petitioner and Sri. C.M.Poonacha, learned advocate for respondent and perused the writ petition record. 4
3. It is not disputed that the order passed on I.A.No.10 rejecting the application on 28.07.2010 has attained finality. However, in view of the objections raised with regard to Ex-D15, the matter having become contentious and in view of the order passed on 26.09.2011 in W.P.Nos. 4382/2011 and 6017/2011, the trial Court ought to have granted an opportunity to the defendant to further cross-examine PW1. The view taken on I.A.Nos. 16 and 17 is unreasonable. In the said view of the matter, the writ petitions are disposed of as follows:
I.A.Nos. 16 and 17 filed in the suit stand allowed subject to the defendant paying to the plaintiff cost of Rs.1,000/- on 26.04.2013 and also cross-examining PW1 in full that day itself. If PW1 is not cross-
examined in full on 26.04.2013, the witness shall stand discharged. If, for any reason, the trial Court has no time to record the evidence of PW1, it may grant adjournment 5 to the parties for cross-examination of PW1, but not on the request made by the defendant. With the cross-examination of PW1, the trial of the suit shall be complete and the arguments of the suit be heard and case may be decided expeditiously and before 29.06.2013.
Sd/-
JUDGE PMR*