Writ Petition No. 1021 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:22520 WP No. 1021 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 1021 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SUDHA, W/O VEERAPPA @ PRAVEEN PATTANASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O BHARAMPURA, BEHIND HEGDE HOSPITAL, HARIHARA, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 601.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. REVANNA BELLARY, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA VEERAPPA @ PRAVEEN, S/O VEERABHADRAPPA PATTANASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WORKING IN AIRTEL COMPANY LAND LORD, R/O NO. 1969, GROUND FLOOR, 8TH MAIN, BLOCK A 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. ALSO RESIDING AT MARKET ROAD, HULGUR VILLAGE, SHIGGAON TALUK, HAVERI DIST - 581 126. (BY SRI. RAJATH, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) TO QUASH THE ORDER ON IA-15 U/O 18 RULE-17 R/W 151 OF CPC IN - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22520 WP No. 1021 of 2025 HC-KAR M.C.NO.306/2019 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY JUDGE COURT, DAVANAGERE AT ANNEXURE-F ALLOWING ANNEXURE C AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.No.15 dated 18.12.2024 in M.C.No.306/ 2019, the wife is before this Court. 2. The wife had filed an application before the Court, to recall PW1 for further cross-examination and the same came to be allowed by order impugned. While dismissing the application, the Court had observed that the petition is filed seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The petitioner has made allegations against the respondents in the petition. The burden is on the petitioner to prove the allegations made against the respondent, but burden is not casted on the respondent to prove the allegations made against her in the petition. The respondent had extensively cross-examined PW.1. The respondent has not made out sufficient grounds to recall PW.1, since he has not specifically stated, which of the points - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22520 WP No. 1021 of 2025 HC-KAR of facts are left out by the previous counsel in the cross examination of PW.1. 3. Merely because the respondent had changed the counsel that alone will not be the ground for recalling PW1 for further cross-examination and the Court has also has referred to Crl.P.No.4877/2024, that a mere change of counsel cannot be a ground to recall the witnesses, as the Court felt that there are no sufficient reasons/grounds to recall PW1 and accordingly dismissed the petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Court without any basis had dismissed the petition, it is submitted that a DNA report dated 19.08.2022 is filed and the earlier advocate has not filed objections to the DNA report which is dated 19.08.2022, due to rush of work, though the party has given instruction, and as per medical science, the client is having a good case. It is submitted that the Court without properly appreciating the reasons behind filing this application has simply dismissed the petition. It is submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the petitioner is permitted to cross-examine the respondent. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22520 WP No. 1021 of 2025 HC-KAR He submitted that though respondent had filed several petitions to expedite the hearing, but they are not cooperating with the Court. 5. The counsel appearing for the respondent submits that only with an intention to protract the proceedings, these kind of petitions are filed. He placed before this Court the orders passed by this Court on 12.07.2024 and 25.09.2024. He submits that this Court had directed the Trial Court to expedite the matter and to dispose of the case within a period of six months. Then another order came to be passed on 25.09.2024, wherein the petition filed by the wife is dismissed by the Court. In another petition, which is filed arising out of an R.P.F.C. which matter was carried by the respondent herein by filing SLP.(Crl)Nos.4574/2025 and 4576/2025. The Hon'ble Apex Court had directed the Trial Court to dispose of the matter within a period of two months. It is submitted that in spite of clear directions from this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, the case is not disposed of. Now the present writ petition is filed before this Court and on the ground that it is pending before this Court, though no stay is granted by this Court. It is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22520 WP No. 1021 of 2025 HC-KAR submitted that the application that is filed by the petitioner herein is devoid of merits and the same has to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsels on either side and perused the material on record. 7. This Court has directed the pending M.C. to be disposed of within six months and also there is an order of Hon'ble Apex Court. Coming to the order impugned, the petitioner wants to cross-examine P.W.1 in respect of DNA report that was place before the Court in the year 2022. The only reason that is stated is, as on that day the counsel appearing had not filed his objections in the rush of the work. As such, now the present counsel wants to cross-examine P.W.1. This matter is of the year 2019, DNA report is of the year 2022. Every time a new counsel comes on record that cannot be a ground for the Court to go back and again recall a witness for further cross examination, when the petitioner is represented by an advocate and when they have not chosen to file any objections. Now it is not open for them to recall PW1 on the ground that new counsel wants to cross-examine PW1. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22520 WP No. 1021 of 2025 HC-KAR 8. The Courts will not wait for the client, till he changes counsel and whenever the counsel is changed, the applications cannot be entertained. The litigant has to be vigilant within the time frame that is granted by the Court in pursuing their matter and in this manner, whenever an advocate is changed, if the Court starts recalling its orders or recalling the witnesses there is no end to the litigation. Hence, strictly within the time frame as fixed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the trial Court has to dispose of the matter without seeking any further time. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:
Decision
ORDER (i) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (ii) All pending IAs., in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT: BHK