Vinod S/O. Keshaw @ Mukund Kolatkar vs Madiwalappa Marbasappa Yenagi on 6 December, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Vinod S/O. Keshaw @ Mukund Kolatkar vs Madiwalappa Marbasappa Yenagi on 6 December, 2012

Bench: H.N.Nagamohan Das

                             :1:




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
              CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

           Dated this the 06th day of December, 2012

                            Before

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS

                WP No 72304 OF 2012(GM-CPC)

BETWEEN

1.    VINOD S/O. KESHAW @ MUKUND KOLATKAR
      AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
      R/O. H.NO. 92, HEMANTH NAGAR,
      KESHWAPUR, HUBLI
                                        ... PETITIONER

(By Sri. DINESH M KULKARNI, ADV.)


AND

1.    MADIWALAPPA MARBASAPPA YENAGI
      AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
      R/O. SAINAGAR ROAD,
      2ND MAIN ROAD, SAJJAN CHAWL, UNKAL CROSS
      HUBLI.
                                         ... RESPONDENT

(By Sri. MAHESH WODEYAR FOR C/R)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
                                :2:




PASSED ON I.A.NO.19 IN OS.NO.202/2007 BY THE II ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE HUBLI, DTD.20.11.2012 PRODUCED VIDE
ANNEXURE-G.

      This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day,
the court made the following:


                             ORDER

Respondent filed O.S. No.202/2007 against the petitioner for decree of specific performance of agreement of sale. Despite granting sufficient opportunity petitioner failed to cross-examine PW.1 and consequently the Trial Court had taken the cross- examination of PW.1 as nil. Thereafter the petitioner filed I.A.14 for recalling PW.1 and the same came to be allowed by levying costs of Rs.1000/-. Though costs were paid, PW.1 was not cross- examined. For the second time, the Trial Court had taken the cross-examination of PW.1 as nil. Thereafter the present application I.A.19 came to be filed again to recall PW.1. Under the impugned order the Trial Court rejected the application on :3: the ground that petitioner failed to avail the opportunity provided to him. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.

3. The suit is one for decree of specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of an immovable property. Valuable rights of parties are involved. No doubt there are certain laches on the part of the petitioner in not cross-examining PW.1. The suit is of the year 2007 and we are in 2012. I am of the considered opinion that one more opportunity is to be provided to the petitioner subject to certain terms. Accordingly the following:

ORDER

i) Writ petition is hereby allowed.

ii) The impugned order dated 20.11.2012 in O.S.202/2007 is hereby set-aside. :4:

iii) I.A.19 is hereby allowed subject to petitioner paying costs of Rs.5000/- before the next date of hearing to the respondent.

iv) On the next date of hearing petitioner to cross-

examine PW.1 or any other day fixed by the Trial Court.

v) Petitioner to cooperate with the Trial Court for speedy disposal of the suit.

vi) The Trial Court to dispose of the entire suit within a time frame of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE Dkb

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court