IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.21852 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
GEETHA RAVINDRANATH W/O RAVINDRANATHA P AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.62 1ST FLOOR, JYOTHI PARADISE, GREEN GARDEN PHASE-2, BANJARA LAYOUT, HORAMAVU, BENGALURU 560 043. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. DINESH KAMATH (PROPRIETOR) KAMATH ASSOCIATES AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.B3, SAI CHARAN, 10TH CROSS GREEN PARK AVENUE RAMAMURTHY NAGAR MAIN ROAD BANASWADI, BENGALURU 560043 2. SADHANA KAMATH (PROPRIETOR) M/S S&D ASSOCIATES AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS NO.251, OPP. ICFAL COLLEGE NEAR BANASWADI FIRE STATION BANASWADI, BENGALURU 43 ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD:22.4.2019 PASSED ON IA NO.10 IN O.S.NO.7513/2015 BY THE LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE [CCH 64] AND BY ALLOWING THIS W.P. VIDE ANNX-A AND DIRECT THE LD, TRAIL JUDGE TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CROSS EXAMINATION OF WITNESS PW-1 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the first defendant in a money suit in O.S.No.7513/2015 filed by the first respondent herein, is knocking at the doors of writ Court complaining that she ought to have been given one more opportunity for further cross examining the plaintiff’s witness; this having not been done by the learned XLIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, the impugned order dated 22.04.2019 is unsustainable.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused petition papers, the impugned order whereby petitioner’s application in I.A.No.10 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC , 1908 is negatived, cannot be faltered because:
a) Admittedly, it is a money suit of the year 2015; on six occasions, petitioner has cross-examined the plaintiff’s witness and even going by her version 15 to 20 minutes per day are remained as having been dedicated for the cross examination, a simple arithmetical calculation should that the total time taken by the petitioner amounts to 1½ hour; a money suit of this nature cannot be dragged on in that way, b) the copies of deposition which the petitioner herself has produced at Annexure – G, itself shows that the cross examination into several pages; the Court below has denied relief to the petitioner by banking upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of VADIRAJ NAGAPPA VERNEKAR Vs. SHARADCHANDRA PRABHAKAR GOGATE, (2009) 4 SCC 410 which rightly applies to the case.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition is rejected in limine.
All contentions of the parties have been kept open.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY