The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - WP No.15260/2020 NC: 2025:KHC:23490 WP No.15228/2020 & HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL W.P.NO.15228 OF 2020 & W.P.NO.15260 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) In W.P.No.15228 OF 2020 BETWEEN: M.S. MALLAPPA, S/O LATE SREENIVASALU, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.66/1, 7TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 008, REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER SRI. M.M. MAHESH, S/O M.S. MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT 66/1, 1ST FLOOR, 7TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION BENGALURU - 560 008. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAAM PRASAD B.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. RPS ORCHIRD PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, NO.3, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI. RAMESH S. JANNU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 2. SMT. P. SHANTHA, W/O LATE M.S. PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, - 2 - WP No.15260/2020 NC: 2025:KHC:23490 WP No.15228/2020 & HC-KAR 3.
Legal Reasoning
SMT. A. MEERA, D/O LATE M.S. PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 4. SMT. P. MANJULA, D/O LATE M.S. PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 5. SRI. M.P. SRINIVASA MURTHY, S/O LATE M.S. PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 6. SRI. G. ANAND, S/O SRI. V.C. GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 7. SRI. H. MANJUNATH, S/O SRI. C.H. HANUMANTHAPPA AGED 44 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT NO.66/1, GROUND FLOOR, 7TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, R.M. EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 080. 8. PRASANA KUMAR, S/O SRI. MUDDAPPA, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.441, ARYA GRUHA, 8TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 080. 9. SRI. M. GOVINDARAJU, S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.27/C, KEMPAPURA, ANJANAPPA LAYOUT, HEBBAL, BANGALORE - 24. 10. JAYABARATHI W/O S.S. SURESHBABU, - 3 - WP No.15260/2020 NC: 2025:KHC:23490 WP No.15228/2020 & HC-KAR D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.20, 1ST MAIN, MUNIKRISHNAPPA LAYOUT, KANAKANAGARA, NEAR PATTEGARAPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 079. 11. S. NAVANEETHA W/O LATE S SUBBANNA, AGED 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.27, 'SREENIVASA', 4TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS, SANJEEVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 072. (BY SRI. GIRI K, ADVOCAE FOR R5; R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 10.02.2021, NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 AND R6 TO R11 ARE DISPENSED WITH) …RESPONDENTS ----- THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER DTD 15.12.2020 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXXXIII ATTL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU BY REJECTING THE PRAYER OF PETITIONER AND CLOSING THE STAGE OF CROSS OF PW1 AT ANNX-C AND THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2020 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXXXIII ADDL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU FOR NOT CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION FOR REOPENING THE CASE FOR CROSS EXAMINATION OF PW1 OF COM O.S.NO.8103/2006 AT ANNX-F AND ETC., - 4 - WP No.15260/2020 NC: 2025:KHC:23490 WP No.15228/2020 & HC-KAR IN WRIT PETITION NO.15260 OF 2020 BETWEEN: SRI. M.P. SRINIVASA MURTHY, S/O LATE M.S. PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT 66/1 GROUND FLOOR, 7TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 008. (BY SRI. GIRI K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S RPS ORCHID PVT. LTD., …PETITIONER A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, NO.3, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI RAMESH S. JANNU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 2. SMT P SHANTHA W/O LATE M S PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, 3. SMT. A MEERA D/O LATE M.S. PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 4. SMT. P. MANJULA D/O LATE M.S. PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 5. SRI. G. ANAND, S/O SRI. V.C. GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, - 5 - WP No.15260/2020 NC: 2025:KHC:23490 WP No.15228/2020 & HC-KAR 6. SRI. H. MANJUNATH, S/O SRI. C.H. HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED 44 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT NO.66/1, GROUND FLOOR, 7TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, R.M EXTENSION, BENGALURU. 7. M.S. MALLAPPA, S/O LATE SRENIVASALU, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.66/1, 7TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 008. 8. PRASANNA KUMAR, S/O SRI. MUDDAPPA, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.441, ARYA GRUHA, 8TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 080. 9. SRI. M. GOVINDARAJU, S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.27/C, KEMPAPURA, ANJANAPPA LAYOUT, HEBBAL, BANGALORE - 24. 10. JAYABARATHI W/O S.S. SURESHBABU, D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.20, 1ST MAIN, MUNIKRISHNAPPA LAYOUT, KANAKANAGARA, NEAR PATTEGARAPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 079. - 6 - WP No.15260/2020 NC: 2025:KHC:23490 WP No.15228/2020 & HC-KAR 11. S. NAVANEETHA W/O LATE S SUBBANNA, AGED 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.27, 'SREENIVASA', 4TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS, SANJEEVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 072. (BY SRI. A.G. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 11.02.2021, NOTICE TO R2 TO R6 AND R8 TO R11 ARE DISPENSED WITH; R7 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2020 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU BE REJECTING THE PRAYER OF PETITIONER AND CLOSING THE STAGE OF FURTHER CROSS OF PW1 AT ANNEXURE-C AND THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2020 ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL LJUDGE BENGALURU FOR NOT CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION FOR REOPENING THE CASE FOR FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION OF PW1 IN COM O.S.NO.8103/2006 AT ANNEXURE-D AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 7 - WP No.15260/2020 NC: 2025:KHC:23490 WP No.15228/2020 & HC-KAR These petitions are filed for the following reliefs : ORAL ORDER "(1) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.12.2020 passed by the Hon'ble LXXXIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru by rejecting the prayer of Petitioner and closing the stage of cross of PW1 at Annexure-C and the order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the Hon'ble LXXXIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru for not considering the application for reopening the case for cross examination of PW 1 in Com O.S No.8103/2006 at Annexure-F. (ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the court below to permit the petitioner to cross examine the PW1 by allowing the applications for re-opening the case filed under order XVIII Rule 17 read with section 151 of CPC in Com.O.S No. 8103/2006. (iii) Grant such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant no.2 submits that respondent no.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.8103/2006. In the said suit, respondent no.1 examined PW.1 and, the said witness was cross examined by the petitioner on 15.12.2020 for some time. Thereafter, request was made by the petitioner to defer the cross examination of PW.1. However, the trial Court directed to continue the cross examination till 5.30 p.m. and thereafter, closed further cross examination of PW.1 and directed the defendants to adduce evidence and posted the matter on 16.12.2020. It is submitted that, on 16.12.2020 an - 8 - WP No.15260/2020 NC: 2025:KHC:23490 WP No.15228/2020 & HC-KAR application was filed by the petitioner seeking permission to cross examine PW.1 and the said application was not disposed of on the said date. The trial Court took the evidence of the petitioner-defendant no.2 as closed on the ground that defendants no.1 and 2 were present. It is submitted that during the said period, the Covid-19 SOP were in operation and without a valid entry pass, defendant no.2 could not enter the Court premises. The said request was not considered and the matter was posted for arguments. It is submitted that, later, on 30.01.2021, applications of the petitioner were rejected. Meanwhile, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking prayer to permit him to further cross examine PW.1 and also to permit him to adduce evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the petitioners herein have agreed to settle the dispute, which has been recorded by the trial Court; however, later, they turned around and want to contest the matter. Hence, the conduct of the party is also required to be looked into while exercising discretionary relief. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. - 9 - WP No.15260/2020 NC: 2025:KHC:23490 WP No.15228/2020 & HC-KAR 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.5 supports the submission of the petitioner and submits that respondent no.5 is defendant no.1(d) in the said suit and, he has also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.15260/2020, seeking for the same relief. In view of the same, the benefit of this order shall also enure to the benefit of other defendants also. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent no.5, and learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material on record and I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.8103/2006 against the petitioner and respondents no.2 to 11 herein for specific performance of a Development Agreement dated 18.4.2005. The records indicate that, the petitioner examined PW.1 and on 15.12.2020, the said witness was cross examined by the petitioner for some time and a request was made to defer further cross examination. However, the trial Court rejected the said request and posted the matter on 16.12.2020. On - 10 - WP No.15260/2020 NC: 2025:KHC:23490 WP No.15228/2020 & HC-KAR 16.12.2020, the petitioner filed an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC seeking a prayer to permit him to further cross examine PW.1. The said application, admittedly, was filed in the counter as the Covid-19 SOP were in force. The trial Court on 16.12.2020 recorded that, defendants no.1 and 2 were absent and closed their evidence and posted the matter for arguments. 7. In my considered view, the trial Court has committed a grave error in passing the impugned order in denying prayer for further cross examination of PW.1 to the petitioner as well respondent no.5. Even, the defendants could not be present on 16.12.2020 as the Covid-19 SOP was in force and it is specifically pleaded that, no entry passes were issued to them. Hence, they could not be present on the said date. 8. Considering the rival submissions and considering the material on record, I am of the considered view that, an opportunity is required to be given to the petitioner to further cross examine PW.1 and also to adduce evidence in the pending suits by the defendants. - 11 - WP No.15260/2020 NC: 2025:KHC:23490 WP No.15228/2020 & HC-KAR 9. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following order:
Decision
ORDER i) Writ petitions are allowed; ii) The impugned order dated 15.12.2020 passed by the LXXXIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, in Com.O.S.No.8103/2006 in both the petitions is hereby set aside. iii) Consequently, applications filed by the petitioners to recall PW-1 are allowed. iv) Respondent no.1 shall keep PW.1 available before the Court for further cross examination and thereafter, the trial Court shall permit the defendants to adduce evidence. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE rs List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT: BHK