Sri N Narayana vs Sri Ramesh Kumar on 8 February, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri N Narayana vs Sri Ramesh Kumar on 8 February, 2010

Equivalent citations: AIR 2010 (NOC) 1049 (KAR.), 2010 (2) AIR KAR R 719

Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala

E _.
~ ~.;.
~ "*>=~.,.......,»«~*"- .

§"'*"~
M

».v"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA  3 V' "

DATED THIS THE 3% DAY 01?  '2§)'1{3.,:,  _ 

THE I-ION'BLE DR. JUSTICE'V"KLT°}3I{AI{'I'H}M§AT$AITTa

BEFORE

WRST PETITION Nos. 1v:-30':/2o1'6_ :&:'%$S§30«/2o1d"(GM-CPC)

BETWEEN

1. Sri N Narayana,  

S / 0 late Narasimhaiah, j

Age: 61 Y'%!ars. i  
G PAHo1der. """ H   1'-

2. Sri N Nagaraja,  V L'

S/0 late NaraVs_i&m'haiah,    

Age: 58 years.

3. Sri N Ra-mxanathx,  A V' 

S/'C. late l|$iéilra:s_i'r111}aiahA,"" «

 54. yéarsf'  _ 

4. s}~;=..1§i'vA{riem.a;..J " W

 ' V A' 5/0 late .Narasi:1i?;aié1i
  44 ye.g1rs._» ~ _ 

 ; »S/cgiate Narasimhaiah,
T  '32'yea~1'S--

' ' ._ S;'Q1éi'f:e Ramaswamy,



 

Age: 78 years.

7. Sri R Krishnappa,
S / 0 late Ramaswamy,
Age: 7' 5 years.

8. Sri Papaiah.
S/o late Ramaswamy,
Age: YO years.

All are represented by G P A    ' --_
Holder, Sri N Narayana, S/o Narasimhaiah,  j. 4'

Age: 61 years.

All are resident of No.23, 14*" rnain,._v 
Byrasandra, Uttrahalli Hobli,  
Bangalore South Taluk,

Bangalore.

(By Sri M R Rajagopal, Adm, fo1*';A)e'fitlot:1e1--'slV" 

AND

1. Sri   A'
S/o Utsavlal,  * 
Age: 41 years.

2. Sri Suresh Kumar,..  VA A
   H  ---------- 
ﬁe: 3Q.years} : _ 

3. sri Mu1{esvh:'KvV1nVar,--v"

 "  vs/o Utsaxflal,
 "Age: 37 y'ears,__v' '

" " ~ IR:~1VtoAA3 are residing at No.100/B,
. = .Bu1l' Ternple Road,
  1\§ear'._S'nan.karapuran1 Telephone Exchange.
-  Nagar,
 BangaIore»560 019.

A A '"PeVtitioners

Respondents

These Writ Petitions is filed under Articles 226 Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated passed oI1I.As.17 and 18 in o s No.868/2000 on the {tie of .2'5*ii Addl." Civil Judge, Bangalore, as per Annexurewl b These Petitions coming on for preliminary j§:1earing--.€this uthe 7 Court made the following:

oRmé:_R.._V V The petitioners/ defendant NosQV'"1,_fo 8 in"O__SA l\]fo.8{3"8/ 2000 on the ﬁle of City Civil Judge, 'Ba&nga.io're" beforenthis Court, praying for duasniingV_-thVe:V:eoxn:rnon order dated 4.12.2009 passed on I.As.XVII and Iii 'tire suit at AnI1eXure-J .

2. the purgoslel of 'convenience and better understanding, the p'¢mt:1§11e£;l:*a_,1id.o£he respondents are hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants «a1rd"--'ti_ie.AV.§:s1aintiffs', respectively, as arrayed in the suit. E

3. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Writ Petitions may be stated as under:

The respondents/plaintiffs have ﬁled ll No.868/2000 on the file of City Civil l' 1' the present petitioners/defendants for l's_plleciﬁc 1.per.for:Inai;1ee or agreement dated 6.8.1990 and pennafxeni injunetio"n;V'etc:.2§ Defendant No.1 ﬁled written statement i'ay'ern3ents plaint. At the stage of evidence, the plaintiffs fafpplirications [I.As.XVIi and XVIII) both of C__,:fprayi11g to recall the order dated ﬁandi.l.lgperIhit"veito'Vl tender P.W.3 for cross» examination the it " The defendants ﬁled common objections. The utrial Colui*tl,7alte:r..'ihearing arguments on l.As.XVII and XVIII, al1;a:wepd" both' "the ____ applications on payment of costs of ~_3and«.directed the plaintiffs to keep P.W.3 present on the pg next dateof This is impugned in this Writ Petitions. L

4. Sri M R Rajagopal, learned Counsel for the petitioners / defendants, has urged the following grounds:

(i) that the plaintiffs failed to keep p.w.3 (M '$4/,tt's"11ti:}1§;a;1ath--

scribe of agreement in question) granting number of adjourmnents_.and:':j11ltiinatel§f 6.11.2008, the trial Cou1't:;:¥ evidence of P.W.3 and.'therefore_:the permitted to tender tcrosseeatanilnatilont

(ii) that the trial j.1;;_ernaitﬁngVVtl1eVv plaintiffs to re--open the case and'ten..de1frP..'%Vt.§'§-».for'.7eross--exarnination though; sirrjilar reiieil in l.A.XV dated :4."1i2.2eoos dateti 'e6.2.2o09 was rejected;

(iii) eariierlj .I.As.XV and XV I were rejected, V _ the it sob_seciuent:_aij'}dlicatior1 l.A.XVlI and XV IH are hit by Jwicéféi ..... V' » ggthatt iftlisutnport of the case of the defendants, D.W.1 was posted for further examination in chief ..a£tt1 that stage, the plaintiffs ﬁled I.As.XVII and XVIII it for re--opening the case and tender PWI3 for cross- exarnination with an ulterior motive; and L 10 opinion, doctrine of res jux:iicata_ is not applicable in the instant case. The decision cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is ofno avail. After passing the impugned orders, the case was adjVo1_irne<i.4't.o"A« 17.12.2009 for eross~examination of P.W.3, but the Presi" H was on leave. I see no illegality or infirmity in the 'im.pugn.edV:order;--3

11. In the result, the Petitions fail and are dismissed.

Bjs

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court