Writ Petition No. 40775 of 2019 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10181 WP No. 40775 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 40775 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S SNN PROPERTIES LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SNN MINDS "EYE, NO.4, 2ND FLOOR, ELEPHANT ROCK ROAD, ABOVE KALYAN JEWELLERS, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER: SRI. SHAH SANJAY. (BY SRI. GOUTHAM CHAND S F.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. G MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O LATE K.V.GURUVA REDDY, RESIDING AT KUDLU VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT-560 068. 2. SMT G. RADHA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O P. ANANDA REDDY, NO.32, APPAREDDY PALYA, INDIRANAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 038. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10181 WP No. 40775 of 2019 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. SMT SAKAMMA A AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS W/O LATE K.V.GURUVA REDDY, RESIDING AT KUDLU VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT- 560 068.
Legal Reasoning
SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE M.LAKSHMANA, MAJOR IN AGE, SMT SHOBHA D/O LATE M.LAKSHMANA, MAJOR IN AGE, SMT REKHA D/O LATE M.LAKSHMANA, MAJOR IN AGE, SMT VEDA D/O LATE M.LAKSHMANA, MAJOR IN AGE, RESPONDENT NOS. 4 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT NO.F-1, FIRST FLOOR, KRISHNA KUNJ APARTMENT, 3RD MAIN, ATTIGUPPE, BANGALORE-560 040. 8. SMT PANKAJA W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, MAJOR IN AGE, 9. MASTER VIJAY S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS 10. KUMARI CHANDANA LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10181 WP No. 40775 of 2019 AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.8 TO 10 BEING MINORS REP. THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARADIAN RESPONDENT NO.8 AND ALL RESIDING AT KODEHOLA VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT - 562 109. 11. M KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 12. H G JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE M.B.RAJU, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, 13. SRI PRADEEP KRISHNA S/O M.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 14. SRI PRIYA KRISHNA S/O M.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.11 TO 14 RESIDING AT NO.2937/38-E, SERVICE ROAD, VIJAYANGAR III STAGE, BANGALORE-560 040. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. HEMANTH RAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, AND R5; V/O DTD 11/09/19 NOTICE TO R3 TO R14 DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2019 AND 17.08.2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL IN O.S.NO.109/2006 (OLD NO.972/1995) ON IA FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER XVII RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC VIDE ANNX-F AND ETC. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10181 WP No. 40775 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner/defendant No.7 is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 06.08.2019 passed on I.A.No.29 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.109/2006, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Anekal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') by which the Trial Court declined the request of the petitioner herein to cross- examine PW.1 and posted the matter for evidence of the defendants finally. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the contents and grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submits that his written statement was taken record on 01.04.2019 and thereafter on 17.06.2019, petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 seeking rejection of plaint. However on 06.08.2019, he withdrew the said application as not pressed. He submits that, on the very same day, the Trial Court had recorded that the petitioner herein had been given sufficient opportunity to cross examine the PW.1 and however - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10181 WP No. 40775 of 2019 had filed unnecessary applications and accordingly declined his request for cross examination of the PW.1. This led the petitioner herein to file application under order under Order XVIII Rule 17 seeking permission to cross examine PW.1, which application came to be rejected by the impugned order. He submits no opportunity has been granted to the petitioner to cross examine the PW.1. He further submits that the subject property having been purchased by the vendor of the petitioner in the year 1994, has been subjected to unwarranted litigation, therefore the petitioner required to cross examine the PW.1 regarding the sale transaction that had taken place and opportunity in this regard is imperative. Hence seeks for allowing of this petition. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents taking this Court through the Order Sheets submits that the petitioner was given opportunities more than three occasions to cross- examine the PW.1, however the petitioner did not avail the said opportunities, instead filed unwarranted applications and dragged the matter, which aspect of the matter has been taken note of by the Trial Court while rejecting the application, warranting no interference in the matter. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10181 WP No. 40775 of 2019 4. Heard and perused the records. 5. As the records would indicate on 01.04.2019, written statement of the defendant No.7/petitioner herein has been taken on record. The matter has been posted thereafter to 17.06.2019 for cross- examination of PW.1. At the request of the defendant No.7/petitioner herein the matter was posted thereafter to 03.08.2019, on which date the petitioner herein has filed application under Order 7 Rule 11, the matter has been thereafter posted to 05.08.2019 for objections to be filed by the plaintiffs to the said application. On the very same day, the petitioner has filed a memo seeking rejection of the said application. Orders in the said application came to be passed on 06.08.2019 while accepting the said memo, the Trial Court has recorded that the petitioner has been dragging the matter unnecessarily, hence he did not deserve any opportunity for cross-examining PW.1. 6. This reasoning assigned by the Trial Court, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is without reference to its own daily order sheet. In that the application seeking rejection of plaint has been filed on 03.08.2019, within - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10181 WP No. 40775 of 2019 two days thereafter he has filled a memo for dismissal of the said application. Order on the said application was passed on the very next day i.e., 06.08.2019, thus only three days have been used for the purpose of filing of the application and rejection said application. This cannot be the reason for the Trial Court to be so harsh to say that the petitioner herein did not deserve an opportunity to cross-examine the PW.1 on the purported ground of he ''unnecessarily'' filing the application. Perhaps, it is this reason which has weighed in the mind of the Trial Court to reject his application filed on 06.08.2019, as well. necessary to note the time consumed between the date of filing of the application for rejection of plaint and rejection of application for cross-examination are just less than ten days. This in the consider view of this Court cannot be considered to be the inordinate delay, caused ''deliberately'' by the petitioner warranting declining of an opportunity to cross-examine the PW.1. Unfortunately, this aspect of the matter has led this writ petition to be filed, which itself is pending consideration for the past six years. 7. Under these circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 17.08.2019, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10181 WP No. 40775 of 2019 allow the applications filed by the petitioner, permit the petitioner to cross-examine the PW.1 on the very next day to be fixed by the Trial Court. 8. It is made clear, if the defendant No.7/petitioner herein does not cross-examine the PW.1 on the date fixed by the Trial Court, he shall not be entitled for any further opportunity in the matter. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13