Writ Petition No. 56142 of 2017 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3854 WP No. 56142 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 56142 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O. LATE. MUNIVEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 2. SRI. H. SIDDESH, S/O. SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KADUSONNAPANNAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. BALAKRISHNAN A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. S.K. MUNIYAPPA S/O. LATE. S KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 2. SRI. S.K. JAVARE GOWDA S/O. LATE S. KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, 3. SRI. S K RAMANJANAPPA S/O. LATE. S KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3854 WP No. 56142 of 2017 4. SRI. MOTAPPA S/O. LATE. CHIKKAPPANNA, AGED ABOUT 95 YEARS, 5. SRI. M KEMPAIAH S/O. MOTAPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 6. SMT. KAMAKSHAMMA W/O. SRI. LATE. S M MUNISIDDAPPA 7. SRI. ANJINAPPA @ APPI S/O. SRI. LATE. S M MUNISIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 8. SMT. PAPAMMA D/O. SRI. LATE. S M MUNISIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 9. SMT. LALITHAMMA D/O. SRI. LATE. S M MUNISIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 10. SRI. S M MUNIYAPPA S/O. SRI. LATE. S M MUNISIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 11. SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O. SRI. LATE. S M MUNISIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 12. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O. SRI. LATE. S M MUNISIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESPONDENS NO.1 TO 12 ARE RESIDING AT KADUSONNAPA, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3854 WP No. 56142 of 2017 HALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.P. SHIVA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; VIDE ORDER DATED 05.02.2018, HAND SUMMONS SERVED IN RESPECT OF R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12 VIDE ORDER DATED 28.01.2025, NOTICE TO R4(D), R4(F), R4(G), R4(I), R4(K), R4(M) ARE DISPENSED WITH; VIDE ORDER DATED 13.12.2023 R4(B, H, J, L) IS HELD SUFFICIENT; PROPOSED R4(C) AND R4(E) SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 7.11.2017 PASSED IN O.S.691/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE SECOND ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEX-F BY ALLOWING THIS W.P. WITH COSTS AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed on IA under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC dated 07.11.2017 in O.S.No.691/2003 by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru, the defendants are before this Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3854 WP No. 56142 of 2017 2. The respondent herein had filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The suit is of the year 2003. The present application is filed to reopen the evidence and to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination. It is the case of defendant Nos.5 & 6 that though the case was posted for cross- examination of PW.1 but on that day, PW.1 was absent then the case was adjourned to 08.08.2017 and on that day, his advocate was not keeping well. But the Court has taken the further cross of PW.1 as nil and posted the case for argument. But his advocate has not cross-examined PW.1. Hence, it is necessary to recall the order dated 08.08.2017 and recall PW.1 for further cross-examination and if the application is not allowed, they will put to repairable loss and injury. The trial Court by the order impugned, had dismissed the application and while dismissing the application, the Court observed that the suit was filed in the year 2003 and perusal of the order sheet shows that since from 2016 to 2017 September, the defendants and plaintiffs have filed several applications by producing the documents and also recall the witnesses. Now the defendant Nos.5 and 6 also filed this application to reopen the evidence and recall PW.1. But the plaintiffs evidence is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3854 WP No. 56142 of 2017 completed in the year 2012 itself. Already defendant Nos.1 to 4 Advocate who have also appeared for dependent Nos.5 and 6 have cross-examined PW.1 in length. Even though, earlier also the application filed by defendant Nos.5 & 6 were allowed, but Advocate for defendant Nos.5 & 6 has not cross-examined PW.1 and now the case is posted for argument. At this juncture, the applications cannot be allowed and witnesses cannot be recalled and cannot be permitted to cross examine and accordingly dismissed the application. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants /petitioners submits that certain documents were marked and in that regard, unless and untill the plaintiffs are cross examined, the defendants may not be able to elicit the truth and it is very much essential for the case of the defendant. He submits that the trial Court had failed to consider the application in its proper perspective and had dismissed the application. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that when the case is posted for arguments, the present application is moved. The trial Court had rightly observed that - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3854 WP No. 56142 of 2017 earlier also on several occasions, when similar kind of applications were filed and they have not cross-examined the plaintiffs and only to drag on the proceedings, these kind of applications are filed and the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application. 5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. This is the suit of the year 2003. In that, initially evidence of PW.1 is completed in the year 2012. Thereafter, as per the order, it appears that several times applications were filed to reopen and recall PW.1 and they were not recalled it to examine and they were never examined. Now the suit of 2003, when it is posted for arguments, now again on some reason or the other, these applications are filed. The parties cannot be permitted to drag on the matter and on the ground of substantial justice, the Courts cannot accommodate in this manner and the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application. Hence, this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3854 WP No. 56142 of 2017
Decision
ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is dismissed. (ii) All IAs., in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. (iii) An application is filed to bring the legal representatives of respondent No.4. Parties are at liberty to take steps before the trial Court. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN/KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11 CT: BHK