IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 51993 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. H C KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE CHIKANNA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.906 12TH MAIN ROAD, ISRO LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560078.
2. SMT SUJATHA B, W/O H C KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.906 12TH MAIN ROAD, ISRO LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560078.
(BY SRI. NATARAJA H C, ADVOCATE) AND:
VISHNUWARDHANA RAO G, S/O LATE VENKATESHWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.1-33 KANKIKPADU, KRISHNA DISTRICT-521151 ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.10/40, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, VEVEKANADNA NAGAR, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560085.
(BY SRI. R S HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) … PETITIONERS … RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.11.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.6521/2012 AS PER ANNX-A BY THE XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU ON APPLICATION FILED U/S 151 AND 18 RULE 17 R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC FILED BY THE PETITIONER NO.1, ACCORDINGLY THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THIS W.P. AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CROSS- EXAMINE THE PW1.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioners being the defendants in a suit for declaration & injunction in O.S.No.6521/2012 are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 22.11.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A, whereby the learned XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, has rejected their subject applications in IA Nos. 12 & 13 filed under Section 151 & under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908 and thus in effect the petitioners are denied an opportunity of cross- examining PW1.
2. After service of notice, the respondent – plaintiff having entered Caveat through his counsel, stoutly opposes the writ petition stating that the application was calculated to protract the suit proceedings and that the petitioners lack the bonafide and therefore, discretionary jurisdiction should not be exercised in their favour.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of a considered opinion that the impugned order is unsustainable, because, ordinarily the litigants should be permitted to lead all and whatever relevant evidence they want to and one of the ways for establishing their case of doing this is by cross-examination of the witnesses of the other side, as well. This aspect of the matter having not been kept in mind by the Court below, there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting indulgence of the Writ Court.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; the impugned order is set at naught; petitioners’ subject applications having been favoured, they are permitted to cross-examine PW1 on the next date of hearing of the suit on payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent-plaintiff on or before such date, failing which the order now set at naught shall stand resurrected.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv