Writ Petition No. 20398 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:25422 WP No. 20398 of 2023 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 20398 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.V.HARI LAKSHMI D/O VASANTAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.64 AND 65 4TH CROSS VASANTHAPURA SUBRAMANYAPURA POST BENGALURU – 560 061. 2. SMT.DEEKSHA S., D/O JANAKI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.9, 9TH CROSS 1ST BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 011.
Legal Reasoning
3. SMT.PAVITHRA S., D/O JANAKI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.9, 9TH CROSS 1ST BLOCK EAST JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 011. (BY SRI VENKATESH R., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25422 WP No. 20398 of 2023 HC-KAR AND: 1. MR.VASANTHAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 2. MR. PADMANABHA S/O VASANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT VASANTHAPURA SUBRAMANYAPURA POST BENGALURU – 560 061. 3. MR.ASWATHANARAYANA S/O VASANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.9 AND 10 2ND MAIN, I BLOCK EAST JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 011. 4. MR.KRISHNAMURHTY S/O VASANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 57, VASANTHAPURA SUBRAMANYAPURA POST BENGALURU – 560 061. 5. MR.RAGHURAM S/O VASANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT VASANTHAPURA SUBRAMANYAPURA POST BENGALURU – 560 061. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25422 WP No. 20398 of 2023 HC-KAR 6. MRS.PARVATHI D/O VASANTHAPPA W/O KESHAVAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDING AT RENUKA DEVI NILAYA UTTARA BADAVANE B.M.ROAD, RAMANAGARA TOWN AND DISTRICT – 562 159. 7. MR.GIRIDHAR BABU S/O RAMACHANDRA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.177, 11TH ‘B’ CROSS, I STAGE J.P.NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 078. 8. MR.N.BALAKRISHNA NAIDU S/O N.RAMANAIDU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.12/17 24 MAIN, 9TH CROSS 5TH PHASE, J.P.NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 078. 9. MR.P.NANJUNDAPPA S/O POOJAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT HOOHALLI VILLAGE HARANAHALLI POST KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 563 101. 10. THE MANAGER INDIA HERITAGE TRUST MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25422 WP No. 20398 of 2023 HC-KAR ISKON TEMPLE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R9) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1) QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER ANNEXURE-A, DATED 23/08/2023, PASSED IN O.S.NO. 1264/2011, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE CCH-53 AT BANGALORE VIDE IA-4 AND 5/2023 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners – plaintiffs are before this Court calling in question an order of dismissal, dated 23.08.2023 passed by the LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, CCH-53, Bengaluru, of interlocutory applications – I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2023, filed by the petitioners under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w. Section 151 of the CPC and Section 151 of the CPC respectively, seeking recall of the order dated 11.01.2023; - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25422 WP No. 20398 of 2023 HC-KAR permission to further cross- examine DW.1 and to reopen the case, respectively. 2. Heard Sri Venkatesh R., learned counsel for petitioners and Smt. Nandita Haldipur, learned counsel for respondent No.9. 3. The petitioners - plaintiffs institute a suit in O.S.No.1264/2011 for partition in the year 2011. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the claim of the plaintiffs or the defense of the defendants. The petitioners - plaintiffs file applications as afore-quoted, seeking to recall DW.1 for further cross-examination. The applications come to be rejected, noticing the fact that DW.1 was present on 12 occasions and only twice the plaintiffs had cross-examined the said witness. Therefore, the applications did not merit favourable consideration at the hands of the concerned Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if one opportunity is given, on a particular day the further cross- - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25422 WP No. 20398 of 2023 HC-KAR examination of DW.1 would be concluded and no further opportunity or adjournment would be sought for. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.9 would put a vehement opposition to any indulgence shown by this Court for recalling of the witness – DW.1 for further cross-examination on the score that the petitioners had all the opportunity; despite granting several opportunities, the petitioners have lost all by not cross-examining DW.1 completely and the matter before the concerned Court was posted thrice for arguments. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is the suit for partition; none of the defendants are contesting except respondent No.9 - defendant No.10, who is the purchaser of a property, prior to the institution of the suit and therefore, cross-examination of DW.1 in its entirety is imperative. 7. In that light, despite vehement opposition of the learned counsel for respondent No.9, I deem it appropriate to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25422 WP No. 20398 of 2023 HC-KAR grant one opportunity to the petitioners for further cross- examination of DW.1. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
Decision
ORDER a. The writ petition and I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2023, are allowed. b. The impugned order 23.08.2023, passed by LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, CCH-53, Bengaluru, stands quashed. c. The concerned Court is directed to re-list the matter on 19.07.2025, for further cross-examination of DW.1. d. It is made clear that not an hour beyond the Court hours on 19.07.2025, shall be granted by the concerned Court to the petitioners for further cross- examination of DW.1. e. The petitioners shall not seek adjournment for further cross-examination of DW.1 before the concerned Court and shall close the further cross-examination by the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:25422 WP No. 20398 of 2023 HC-KAR end of the Court hours on 19.07.2025 and regulate its procedure to proceed further in taking the suit to its logical conclusion. f. All of these would be subject to payment of costs of ₹10,000/- to respondent No.9, to be paid by the petitioners. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14