IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.50060 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
A.S. LOKESH S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/OF AADALINGAIAHNAPALYA VILLAGE MAGADI TALUK, SHANKIGHATTA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
(BY SRI. HARSHA D. JOSHI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. R.T. KAUSHIK S/O LATE T.T. CHARI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT. 006, SOBHA JADE JAKKUR, BANGALORE-56064.
2. MURTHY MAJOR R/AT. No.1928, D GROUP LAYOUT SIRIGANDADAKAVALU, BANGALORE-91.
3. DHANANJAYA MAJOR R/AT. No.1129, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS D GROUP LAYOUT, VN POST BANGALORE-560091.
4. M. DEVARAJA MAJOR R/AT. No.1582, 7TH MAIN 6TH CROSS, HAMPINAGARA VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560040. (BY SRI. G.L. VISHWANATH, ADV., FOR R1) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT I.E., XXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-7) TO FRAME ADDITIONAL ISSUES AFTER FILING THE WRITTEN STATEMENT BY THE FIRST DEFENDANT WHICH WAS TAKEN ON RECORD ON 26-8-2019 DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO TAKE ON RECORD THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE FIRST DEFENDANT ON 9-10-2019 THE ORIGINAL OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D AND E TO THIS PETITION AND TO ADJUDICATE AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS ON THE SAME & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner being the defendant in a declaratory suit in O.S.No.7245/2018 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 26.08.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-C made by learned XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby he has been denied the opportunity of cross-examination. The other grievance of the petitioner is against posting of the matter directly for recording the evidence without framing the issues despite accepting Written Statement the belatedly filed.
2. After service of notice, respondent No.1-plaintiff have entered appearance through his counsel and opposes the writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the parties having argued the matter for some time, are broadly in agreement with the suggestion of the Court that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to seek framing of additional issues, if any, by moving appropriate application and further, he be given an opportunity of cross-examining PW-1 subject to cost and condition.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; regardless of the impugned order, the petitioner shall be permitted to move the application for framing of additional issues, if any, within a period of two weeks and after orders are passed thereon, he shall be permitted to cross-examine PW-1 without brooking delay, however subject to payment of cost of `3,000/- to the respondent No.1-plaintiff on the next date of hearing or within a period of four weeks, whichever is later, failing which, the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.
All the contentions of the parties are kept open.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-