Karnataka High Court
Sri P. Mohan vs Smt. Uma Rao on 5 August, 2014
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.36487 OF 2014 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Sri. P. Mohan,
Son of T. Papaiah Reddy,
Aged about 61 years,
Resident of No.265/3,
6th Cross, Kaggadasapura Lake Road,
C.V.Raman Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 093.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri. R. Ramachandran, Advocate)
AND:
1. Smt. Uma Rao,
Proprietorix,
M/s. Uma Builders,
No.C-103, 1st Floor,
Aishwarya Lake View Residency,
C.V.Raman Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 093.
Residing at Smt.Uma Rao,
Wife of Mallari Rao,
2
Aged about 42 years,
Resident of No.117,
"Lavanya", Karnataka Layout,
Mahalakshmipuram Post,
West of Chord Road,
Bangalore - 560 086.
2. Sri. P.R.Nataraj,
Son of Late Raghavendra Aithal,
Aged about 40 years,
Residing at No.1107,
9th Block, Janpriya Township,
Kadebegere,
Off. Magadi Road,
Bangalore - 562130.
3. Sri. Shivaram,
Son of Appaiah,
Aged about 37 years,
Residing at No.1125,
5th Cross, Kalyan Nagar,
T. Dasarahalli,
Bangalore - 560 005.
4. Sri. S. Praveen Kumar,
M/s. Iris Computers,
Aged about 32 years,
Cunningham Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
5. Sri. S. Umesh,
Son of Sridhar Rao,
Aged about 42 years,
Residing at No.14,
8th Cross, 5th Main,
3
Srinidhi Layout,
Konanakunte, Bangalore - 560 062.
6. Sri. Badrinarayan,
Son of N. Ramdas,
Major, residing at No.117,
Lavanya, Karnataka Layout,
Mahalakshmipuram P.O.,
West of Chord Road,
Bangalore - 560 086.
7. Sri. K. Shivanna,
Son of Karigowda,
Aged about 36 years,
Residing at No.30, Amblipura,
Belandur Gate, Sarjapur Road,
Bangalore - 560 034.
8. Sri. N.S. Lakshmi,
Wife of Sri. K.Shivanna,
Aged about 27 years,
Residing at No.30,
Amblipura, Belandur Gate,
Sarjapur Road, Bangalore - 34.
9. Sri. Krishna Kumar,
Son of Krishnan Nair,
Major, residing at No.69,
5th Main, Munnekolal,
Marathahalli Post,
Bangalore - 560 037,
Represented by his GPA Holder
And wife Mrs. Sheeja Krishna Kumar.
10. Sri. M. Mahadevaiah,
4
Son of Madaiah,
Aged about 52 years,
Residing at No.673,
9th Main, Channakeshavanagar,
Hosur Road,
Bangalore - 560 068.
11. Sri. B. Narasimha Reddy,
Son of Late Sri. Bhagavanth Reddy,
Aged about 40 years,
Residing at No.59, GSN Reddy Building,
Church Road, Murugeshpalya,
HAL Post, Bangalore - 560 017.
12. Sri. Prabhuraj D Ambli,
Son of Durandayya M Ambli,
Major, No.304, Archana Enclave,
Prashanthinagar, ISRO Layout,
Bangalore - 560 078.
13. Sri.S.A. Praveen,
Son of Anantha Ramu.S,
Aged about 31 years,
Residing at No.484,
M.C.Layout, 11th Main,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 093.
14. Sri. K.N.Shankara,
Son of K.N.Shastry,
Aged about 51 years,
Residing at No.570,
Sajjan Rao Road,
V.V.Puram, Bangalore - 560 004.
5
15. Sri. M.N.Bala Krishna Pillai,
Son of M.K.N.Pillai,
Aged about 55 years,
Residing at No.20/8,
Muneshwara "T" Block,
Girinagar, Bangalore - 560 085.
16. Sri. Nagaraj,
Son of S.V.S.Iyengar,
Aged about 52 years,
Residing at No.228,
B.S.N.I.Quarters, Sectro II,
Nandini Layout,
Bangalore - 560 079.
17. Smt. Latha Ganeshan,
Wife of V.S. Ganeshan,
Major, resident of "Eshwari Nilaya",
No.5/28, 28th Main, 2nd Cross,
Muneshwara "T" Block,
Girinagar, Bangalore - 560 085.
...RESPONDENTS
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to set aside the impugned
order dated 19.7.2014 passed in O.S.No.1629/2012 vide
Annexure-C by the trial court in adjourning the case for cross of
plaintiff by the R-12.
This Writ Petition is coming on for Preliminary Hearing
this day, the court made the following:
6
ORDER
The present petitioner is the plaintiff and his grievance is limited to pointing out that the suit filed by him is of the year 2012 and would also indicate that the suit was contested only by Defendant No.12, though there are 16 defendants. Even Defendant No.12 who sought to contest the suit, had proceeded to do so in a laconic fashion. The matter was even posted for evidence on his not having filed written statement. However, the defendants later appeared at their own pace and sought recalling of the order, which was mechanically recalled and thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time as seen from the order-sheet over several months. The written statement was filed in the year 2013 and thereafter issues have been framed. Though the petitioner - plaintiff has tendered evidence and the matter having been set down for cross- examination of the plaintiff, as PW-1, on 8.1.2014, 24.03.2014, 19.04.2014, 21.06.2014 and 19.07.2014, on all the above dates, 7 the defendants had sought for time to cross-examine. The learned counsel would point out that the witness was present on all the above dates of hearing. But, the Court, without assigning any reason and in spite of protests by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, has adjourned the matter, which is in violation of Order XVII Rule 1 Sub-rule (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and therefore, is before this Court seeking appropriate directions that there be no further such adjournments which has caused much hardship and suffering to the plaintiff - petitioner. The same being in gross violation of law, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is in quandary to explain to his client as to how the matter could be adjourned indefinitely without further progress and he is unable to answer his client.
2. From a perusal of the order-sheet that is produced along with this writ petition, the sequence of events as narrated by the petitioner appear to be true and which is very 8 unfortunate. Therefore, this Court in its writ jurisdiction and exercising power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is left with no choice, but to direct that the Trial Court shall not grant any such adjournments mechanically, without assigning good and proper reasons. The plaintiff who has been present on each date of hearing, offering himself for cross-examination being sent back mechanically at the instance of the Defendant No.12 who has shown a total want of diligence from inception, does not augur well for the judicial process. Therefore, the Trial Court is directed that there shall not be any such casual adjournments henceforth in the proceedings and certainly not on the next date of hearing, namely on 16.08.2014 and if the witness should present himself, he should either be cross-examined by the defendants or shall be discharged and the case shall be posted for further proceedings and if the plaintiff is ready, the matter should be taken up and considered further, in accordance with law. 9
With that observation, the petition stands disposed of. Any further adjournments in the proceedings shall reflect the reasons as to why the matter is being adjourned, in the order sheet.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS