Writ Petition No. 17575 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:22171 WP No. 17575 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.17575 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
Legal Reasoning
SHRI SHAIR SYED AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS S/O. LATE GUL SYED RESIDENT OF NO.4 2BD ABD 3RD FLOOR AYODHYANAGAR J.P. NAGAR BENGALURU-560 078. (BY SRI VISHWANATH N., ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka SHRI SANE VAMSEESDHAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O. LATE SHRI S. VENKATA REDDY RESIDENT OF NO.1/12689 ANKALAMMA TEMPLE STREET PULIVENDALA KADAPA DISTRICT ANDHRAPRADESH …RESPONDENT (BY SRI C.N. KESHAVA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) * * * THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.5262 OF 2019 PENDING ON THE - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22171 WP No. 17575 of 2025 HC-KAR FILE OF LEARNED XL ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-41) AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 16.04.2025 passed on I.A.No.9 filed under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the CPC for short) seeking re-examination or further cross- examination of DW-1. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The tenancy between the petitioner and the respondent leads the respondent - plaintiff to the concerned Court in O.S.No.5262/2019 seeking eviction and direction to pay arrears of rent at Rs.5,23,153/- as on 18.07.2019. 2. The issue in the lis does not pertain to the merit of the matter. On 03.04.2025, the petitioner files an application in I.A.No.9 seeking recall of DW-1 for the purpose of cross- examination. The concerned Court has rejected it on the score - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22171 WP No. 17575 of 2025 HC-KAR that the petitioner-defendant has been given ample opportunities and has not availed of the same and has filed a subject application only when the matter was posted for arguments only with a ruse to drag the proceedings. 3. Heard Shri Vishwanath N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri C.N. Keshava Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would reiterate the submissions made in the application seeking recall of DW-1 filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent - landlord submits that the application is filed only to drag the proceedings and is an abuse of the process of the law. This is the second suit that the respondent has filed and the first suit was permitted to be withdrawn to institute a fresh suit on the score of the compromise between the parties. The subject suit is now six years old and the matter is at the stage of arguments. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks dismissal of the petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22171 WP No. 17575 of 2025 HC-KAR 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have pursued the material available on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue in the lis is with regard to a dispute between the landlord and the tenant. What brings the petitioner - tenant before this Court is an opportunity for further cross-examination of DW-1 by his recall whose cross-examination has been closed on account of the folly of the petitioner of not availing ample opportunity that is granted to him. The concerned Court rejects the same. The reason for rejection is as found in the order: "On going through the records it is seen that, the evidence of plaintiff was concluded on 09.09.2024 and the records also shows multiple opportunities have been given to the defendant to cross-examine P.W.1 and finally P.W.1 was cross-examined fully on 09.09.2024 and thereafter, the matter was posted for defendant evidence on 19.09.2024 and on 04.11.2024 the defendant evidence was taken as nil. When the matter was set down for arguments, the defendant counsel filed application to recall the order and permit the defendant to lead evidence and the said application was allowed on cost and on 04.12.2024 the defendant got examined as D.W.1. On 03.01.2025 & 23.01.2025 he remained absent before the Court and hence, cross of D.W.1 was expunged and for the second time the matter was posted for arguments. Thereafter, I.A. No.7 was filed by the defendant counsel seeking permission to tender D.W.1 for cross-examination and the said application was also allowed on cost. Again on 12.02.2025, D.W.1 remained - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22171 WP No. 17575 of 2025 HC-KAR absent and the defendant counsel sought adjournment. This Court by rejecting the prayer of the counsel, expunged the cross examination of D.W.1 and for the third time posted the matter for arguments. Thereafter, the arguments of the plaintiff counsel was heard and the defendant arguments was also heard in part and at this juncture, again the defendant has come up with the similar application seeking permission to tender himself for cross-examination. So on going through the records it shows the defendant on one of the other pretext has delayed the proceedings and whenever an adverse order is passed against him he comes up the similar application and the said application will be allowed on cost and thereafter, again he would not turn up. So the conduct of defendant shows multiple opportunities have been given to defendant to conduct the case effectively and having not utilized the same, he cannot seek for another opportunity for cross- examination. Hence, the application deserves to be dismissed." tender himself to The concerned Court notices that several opportunities on 19.09.2024, 04.11.2024, 04.12.2024, 03.01.2025 and 23.01.2025, the matter was posted for cross-examination of DW-1. The petitioner did not avail the said opportunity and again on 12.02.2025, DW-1 remained absent and the defence counsel sought adjournment. Therefore, the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, the subject application comes to be filed before the concerned Court. 8. If the dates and events are noticed as captured by the concerned Court in the impugned order, what would - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22171 WP No. 17575 of 2025 HC-KAR unmistakably emerge is that about six opportunities was granted to the petitioner to appear for cross-examination and on all the six occasions, on one pretext or the other, there has been adjournment in the matter. Since the petitioner has been granted ample opportunity, I find no warrant to interfere with the order passed by the concerned Court. 9. Finding no perversity in the order passed by the concerned Court impugned in the subject petition, for this Court to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petition lacking in merit stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28