Karnataka High Court
Y N Srinivasa Reddy vs M/S Alpha Industrial Complex on 30 November, 2017
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
W.P.Nos. 26091-26092/2017 & 26797/2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1 Y.N.SRINIVASA REDDY
S/O Y.V.NANJUNDAPPA
66 YEARS, R/A Y.V.ANNAIH ROAD
YELACHENAHALLI
BANGALORE - 560 078
2 Y.N.JAYARAMA REDDY
S/O Y.V.NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/A Y.V.ANNAIH ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 078
3 A.MOHAN KUMAR
S/O Y.V.NANJUNDAPPA
53 YEARS, R/A Y.V.ANNAIH ROAD
YELACHENAHALLI
BANGALORE - 560 078 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SRINIVASA MURTHY S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 M/S.ALPHA INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
REP. BY ITS PARTNERS HAVING
ITS OFFICE AT NO.6,
S.A.BHAWAN ROAD
VISHWESHARAPURAM
BANGALORE - 560 004
2 SRI KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O SUNDARAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
2
NO.23, MIG, KHB COLONY
KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE - 560 034
3 SRI B.C.GURUNATH
S/O SRI M.C.KUMARASWAMY PILLAI
74 YEARS, R/A NO.19,
RAJA RAJESHWARI
100 FT. RING ROAD III PHASE
5TH BLOCK, BSK III STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 085
4 SRI G.RANGANATH
S/O P GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
R/A NO.259, 6 'A' CROSS
BSK III STAGE
CHANNAMMANAKERE ACHAKATTU
BANGALORE 560 085
5 SRI G EASWARDAS
S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
NO.105, 4TH CROSS, I BLOCK
JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 078
SRI Y.V.NANJUNDAPPA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY
HIS SONS WHO ARE ALREADY
ON RECORD AS PLAINTIFFS-1 AND 2
6 SRI Y.V.ANNAIAH
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
YELACHENAHALLI VILLAGE
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE 560 078
7 M/S.ALPHA PRECISION COMPONENTS
PVT. LTD
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
3
AT NO.5/4, YELACHENAHALLI VILLAGE
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE 560 078
REP. BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR
ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, C &D WING
KENDRIYA SADAN, KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE 560034
8 KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, A BODY
CORPORATE HAVING ITS HEAD
OFFICE AT NO.1/1,
THIMMAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE 560 052
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
9 M/S.STATE BANK OF INDIA
SAM BRANCH, NO.61,
4TH FLOOR, RESIDENCY PLAZA
RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001
REP BY SMT.KAMINI BALARAM
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.G.PANDIT, ADVOCATE FOR R-8)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2017
(ANNEXURE-L) DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.26 AND ALSO
LSET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2016 (ANNEXURE-
H) PASSED ON I.A.NO.24 AND 25 IN O.S.NO.7732/2002 ON
THE FILE OF XLIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ETC.,.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
This is a plaintiffs writ petition calling in question order dated 20.01.2017 dismissing I.A.No.26 and also order dated 19.11.2016 passed on I.A.Nos.24 and 25 rejecting the applications filed by plaintiffs for recall of D.W.2.
2. Heard the arguments of Sri S Srinivasa Murthy, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners and Sri S.G.Pandit, learned Advocate appearing for respondent-8 who is the only contesting respondent in the present proceedings since witness sought to be recalled is D.W.2 namely, official witness of Karnataka State Finance Corporation - 9th defendant before trial Court.
3. Though Sri Srinivasa Murthy, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners has very vehemently contended that there was no lapse on the part of petitioners, has now filed an affidavit of petitioner No.1 deposing thereunder that when the matter was called 5 on 15.07.2013, the counsel representing the plaintiffs was not present and as such, D.W.2 could not be cross examined and as such he (D.W.2) came to be discharged. Said affidavit is placed on record.
4. Taking into consideration the affidavit filed by petitioner No.1 today and the fact that suit is for partition and declaration and witness - D.W.2 had been recalled on 24.09.2016 and at the instance of plaintiffs, it was adjourned to 24.10.2016 and 14.11.2016 on which dates D.W.2 was present though counsel for the plaintiffs had sought for adjournment it came to be refused, this Court finds that yet one more opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioners conditionally to cross examine D.W.2 in the light of the affidavit filed today and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (1) Writ petition is hereby allowed. (2) Impugned order dated 19.11.2016 -
Annexure-H is hereby set aside. 6 I.A.Nos.24 and 25 are hereby allowed on payment of costs of ` 5,000/-
payable by the petitioners to D.W.2 - Official witness of Karnataka State Finance Corporation.
(3) Said amount shall be deposited or paid to D.W.2 on the next date of hearing and D.W.2 shall appear before trial Court on the next date of hearing on which date, plaintiffs shall proceed with the cross examination of said witness i.e., D.W.2, failing which, order of discharge passed earlier would stand.
Ordered accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE *sp