Karnataka High Court
Sri Prashanth R Chakrapani vs Sri R S Chakrapani on 20 October, 2010
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
'(RY RI Hf. MADHVACHAR, ADV. FOR C/R) IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 20"' DAY OF OCTOBER, BEFORE THE HON'ELE MR. JUSTICE A.N. \_/E.NUGO'R'ALA* 1§GjO1YI'VD'A.V wRIT PETITION NOS.3I538-315435/2.OI'OL BETWEEN: SRI PRASHANTH R.CHAi<RAPANI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, _ - _ -- S/O SR1 R.s.CHAr<RAPANI._ 1_ , , NO.155, "SRINIVASA", S.C' R_OAD,__?* BASAVANAGUDI, V ' . , I BANGALORE ~ 560 0.04. I ._ PETITIONER (BY SRI E.C._.SEETHiARAMA_;RA1O., A--D\I.;) . AND: V _ . _ SRIR.S;CHA'K'R_.I?§PAN§;V' _ AGED AEIOUT 7V3'YEA.,RS,_ - S/O SRINI\/ASAC--HARfLC.H'AI§R,ARANI NO.155, "SvRINIvA'SA";.s..CROAD, EASAvANAG'U.DI',' . 1 BANGALORE -- 5'60 004. ' " ' RESPONDENT 1'H.E~SE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OE THE CO--NSTjI=TUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE REC--D_RDS~ CONNECTED WITH O.S.NO.5065/2008, EXAMINE THE SAME AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.3.2010 MADE ON '»I.A.NO."a BY THE HON'BLE XXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND '¥,SESSION"S JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY AND TO ALLOW THE "-FRAYERS MADE THEREIN AND QUASH THE ORDERS DATED _ 2.3.9.2010 MADE ON I.A.NOs 17 TO 19 IN O.S.NO.5065/O8 BY " THE HON'BLE XXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS ~»J'L}DGE, BANGALORE CITY AND TO ALLOW THE PRAYERS MADE THEREIN. THESE PETETEONS COMING ON FOR PREL.EM_I"i-AARY HEARING IN 8' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT _M_A'DE'>T*_i-i'E«x FOLLOWING: ORDER
Petitioner/plaintiff has in=stituted declaration, injunction and vconsequ'ent'ia| r.ei'i"efs4_Vaga§insit respondent/defendant. The father respectively. By filing'ivri"ttenLst_atem'e2n:'t~and anflamended written statement. IiiasV':co.ntested the suit claim. Issues' has deposed as PW.1.'_VT€i-we as DW.1. Respondent did However, he has examined DWs.2 'fat the stage of hearing of a rg qm'e.:.ts.
" iV5?.et.i':t'i«oVner had filed I.A.8 on 4.2.2010 under 0.18 to reserve liberty to him to lead V . rebi.i'tta|"---'evidence, to which, the respondent filed statement Oiajections on 8.2.2010. The Trial Court has rejected .2 thesaid application on 24.3.2010.
/ fa
3. The petitioner filed I.A.17 on 9.8.2010 under S.151 CPC to reopen the case and permit him to.----.l_ead further evidence. On the same day, I.A.18 the plaintiff to issue witness summons to the H State Bank of India, Gandhi Bazar:-B'ra'i1ch_,"..Ban§alo_i'e--4»,:tog produce the documents and tende"r_e'vidence'..., i'~)eEeri--da.nV't'r_ filed statement of objectionsitto on it 13.9.2010. The plaint'iff fi|ed""I;e.3§;*1'§-»..on ¢_9.2eio under S.151 C?C to recall him to further cross examine to.,wl'lfiichV' defendant filed statements'offqbjetitiion's_on i'3';'§."2010. The Trial Court upon c'on'si_derati0:'ni«.dV"ii.a.s=-dejected I.As.17 to 19 on 23.9.2()10."'~..Agg,rieve~.rl,"the plaintiff has filed these writ .-,petitji'en§..,to..,set as"i'cle--the orders passed on I.As.8 and 17 to _'19«and reliefs prayed therein.
'' V. B.C.Seetharama Rao, learned counsel
7..«._'_"..appear'in_Q- for the petitioner contends that, I.A.8 has not VVisaeenffconsidered in accordance with law. Learned counsel submits that, since issues were raised casting burden of if proof on both the parties, there was an obligation on the part of the Trial Court to permit the plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence and in not doing so, by rejecting I.A.._8, it has committed an irrational act. Secondly, have not been correctly considered. Learned,'co'u'nise'l'_f M submits that, the defendant had:-'nei'ther'tfiled of witnesses nor had disclosed about'«.e):{alminatio,n'~of:
to 6 in support of his case arivd."'i<ience, the..,petiVt'i:on'e'rslwas if not aware of the naturepf eyid'ennc'e tl"..a_t is lfblrought in and the witnesses were exa'mi,ned'---,b'y:' the-d'ef"endant to prove issue l$io'.i3'"andthe71s'aid'*materia'l"as:pect has not been taken into consid_eratiVo~n."'=4.wihiv_lel-fipyassing the impugned order. Learned coun'sel_-v_subm~its that, the Trial Court has .__to rej'ec-t~I.As.17 to 19 in a hurry without consivder,i:rig,,'th:e**grave injustice that would be caused to the tidenying him the reasonable opportunity to lgymeet false plea and evidence brought in by the ":T"_defe"ndant by examination of DWs.2 to 6. Learned counsel submits that there is procedural impropriety, irrationality and illegality on the part of the Trial Cour matter of K' consideration of I.As.8 and 17 to 19 and hence, interference is called for.
5. Sri M.Madhvachar, iearned counsel appea,ring.,_:'fo_r the respondent on the other hand contended?_:it'h'at.,j~:t_he._._'"_ chalienge to the order passed on 1.5.8 at't'iii's.fien'o:th,Vof.if time is untenable. Learned C0Ui'3.$e|:_"SLJ5nfihit_S*.fhafViaaiftéfl' I.A.8 was rejected, the defenffdant dfeposed i.3j.'..'\..I._.1H examined DWs.2 to 6 and wh_e'ri.,:_th.e suitposited for hearing of arguments, been filed and the same have also beeni'Vrejected,,a.nd h_e,n'ce,' it is not open to the pie'ti'tion:eir to:?questi,Vo-n theorder passed on I.A.8 at this iengvjthl counsel further contended that, DWs.V2f"to"6.Vw-ere._»'p'roduced in the Court, examined and v.'ha~ve...,be»en cross'--~e><'amined. As such, no prejudice has plaintiff by mere non--fii:'ng of witness list. ,__""%i..ea_rneV:::c'i1iV_7;counsei submits that, the Trial Court has VV'--«__._".r;onside~red. I.As.17' to 19 in accordance with law and the "ord,er""A_passed thereon, on 23.9.2010, in the facts and ...Wcir'<,:umstances of the case is justified. \gL //A f K.
6. In view of the rivai contentions and the record of the writ petitions, which I have perused, the point for consideration is, whether the impugned ordersefare jusfified?
7. Indisputabiy, after issues»were""fr:ajméd:, *-trust' it plaintiff filed fist of witnesses, in wh,ich:,"th:e Ma'najge'r,V:$Atate_'é Bank of India, Gandhi Baz'ar..._Branch',' was'jc.i,ted,VVVa.'s Va witness. The defendant didtnot file t'he.t_:witness list.
9iaintiff deposed as the defendant has not cited any. witnesses;th'e._piaintiff".did not take out witne§§.rv'§,j/mrnons tVi1'e.V.:'i\'!anadeVr, State Bank of India, Gandhi xirlaéarvBra'ri§n_2'a'n_d"«examine him. The defendant without fiiing ~wi'tne'ssé"'iist and making known to the ._,pEai'n_.t'iff:,.,as to,_the'pe"rs"ons whom he would be examining as .wit,n.esase:s.,,:hasaejxamined DWs.2 to 6. On account of the defe.ndant.ex;amining the said witnesses, a need has arisen the .p!3aintiff to obtain witness summons to the cited "'-witnesses and examine him. The need for recaiiing of and 2 has also arisen on account of examination of /"
rv DWs.3 to 6, since the plaintiff did not had the knowledge of DWs.2 to 6 being examined, when DW1 was cross examined. In view of the defendant examining 6 after the croSs--examination of DWs.1 and 2, it h;as~ necessary for the plaintiff to seek recalling of.,t_5_jvi.!sV.i:'and 6 for further cross--examination. Since th,ejj.tri.a|':ja,s complete and the suit was.e'p_oste'd'._for argu'rne:nts,':';the applications seeking re--opening'of'the case_'of':the; plaintiff and issue of witness stirnmons toVi"'L'h_e.,Vf'cited witnesses and for recalling of DWs.1 aAndV:'2.,,for further'cross--examination were filed whifih fifnthe "fac;fis"'and' c_ir"c'um-stances of the case were justified. 6 '
8. "The without correctly noticing the reasons 'statedwnin.theaffidavit in support of I.As.17 to 19, »njVerely.,VA_be,ca:u'se there is a direction to dispose of the n}aétt.e'r,u"ha's:..denied reasonable opportunity to the plaintiff g to p.lac.e""vhis' side of evidence. The Trial Court ought not to ':g,havre._.Apermitted the examination of DWs.2 to 6, without
-- thhgeywbeing cited as witnesses by filing a wfiess list at the i /"
¢\ 8 relevant stage. Since an error had come to be committed by the Trial Court in permitting the defendant to examine the said witnesses, the piaintiff cannot be deprived reasonable opportunity to putforth his case.
9. In the circumstances, theVplaintiff.'waaj'ust'ified in "
filing I.As.17 to 19 which being me.rito1r'io.us,"ic0'u'ght'to:'h_ave_:l been allowed. The order vpassed "otherwise',' l~..jin11p;,g'§,/led herein, is irrational and illegal.
10. However, the'plla'i~n'tiifff'i'isv n.'otv'.l_ent'itled to lead any rebuttal evidence.' .__Afte'rV' w'aV:S«.pass;ed, defendant has deposed witnesses i.e., DWs.2 to 6.
The plaintiff".h_avin_g c'rols's-{:e><a"mined the said witnesses i.e., E'.)Ws.:2»to cannot how question the order passed on view of thlewilntervening circumstances, i.e., after on I.A.8 and the plaintiff's conduct of cross_~ex'amin=ing DWs.1 to 6, the plaintiff is not entitled to n""'«._VV"'the,,rellieflprayed in I.A.8. The Trial Court is justified in A rdismilssing I.A.8. The challenge to the Eerder passed on _,I..,*§\.8 has to fail.
/7 In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER W.P.31538/2010 filed questioning the on I.A.8 dated 24.3.2010 shall stand dismissed;_:~~...Vv ' in W.P.31539 to 31541 of 20111 q.T,.¢sti¢'r:.ii1gl ithé"i¢:r;1erg* passed on I.As.17 to 19 stand 'ia_llowe'd. and tvh'eA~ii.i"n..pgg_.'ned order, shall stand quashed. I._l_§4l_l:s.".-.:L:_7'--.,t»o 19' stanndvfiaiiowed. Plaintiff shall obtain witness examine the cited witnesses before:.12v..1j:1.2*Oé1'Q.if"'V_Dilii's"."i and 2 shall make themsgsiaii/I:/.es::1:e'*g:}'t_«_-aliable _:Vfor_,uf1jglrt'l';erWE:ross~examination of the pllai'i'1vt.§ff"sonstash 'daétels 'w'h'ic:hflthe Trial Court may fix between"l_A " _.'1.1.11.2010. The cross- examination"~«.ofvv 2 shall be completed before The'e><amination and cross-examination of V'V,tr;.ei'cite'd4:_"1«i'itnesses of the plaintiff shall be completed betwelen 12'lj1i1'1.l;'2Vo1o to 16.11.2010. No costs. Sd/-}_ Judge it " -Ks}/~