IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.50247 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
M/S. H.M. ESTATES AND PROPERTIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HM GENEVA HOUSE NO.14, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU – 560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. H.J. SIWANI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O. LATE J.K.SIWANI ... PETITIONER (BY SRI ABHINAV RAMANAND A., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. CAPT. G. RAMANANDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS S/O. LATE SRI. A. GURUPPA REDDY R/AT NO.49, 15TH CROSS WILSON GARDENS BENGALURU – 560 027 2. M/S. FERN VALLEY RESORTS PVT. LTD. NO.2, AVS COMPOUND 80 FEET MAIN ROAD 4TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 095 COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT AND REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 3. MR. PAUL A. FERNANDEZ AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS MANAGING DIRECTOR S/O. ANTONY FERNANDEZ M/S. FERN VALLEY RESORTS PVT. LTD., NO.2, AVS COMPOUND 80 FEET MAIN ROAD 4TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 095 4. SRI T. JOSEPH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O. SRI. JOSEPH R/O. CHERAYIL, GUYYA POST SIDDAPUR COORG KARNATAKA 5. M/S. PURVANKARA PROJECTS LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INDIA COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.227, S.V. ROAD BANDRA WEST, MUMBAI – 500 005 REPRESENTED BY ITS A.G.M-LEGAL 6. SRI G. SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS S/O. LATE GURUVA REDDY R/AT NO.496, 1ST FLOOR 15TH CROSS, INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 038 7. SRI G. JANARDHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O. G. RADHAKRISHNA REDDY R/AT NO.596, 27TH MAIN B.T.M LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 076 8. SMT. DEVAKI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS W/O. LATE G. SATHYANARAYANAREDDY 9. SRI SUMAN AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O. LATE G.SATHYANARAYANAREDDY 10. SMT. HIMABINDU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS D/O. LATE G.SATHYANARAYANAREDDY R8 TO R10 ARE R/AT NO.A3, SHOBITA APARTMENTS 12TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN J.P.NAGAR, 3RD PHASE BENGALURU – 560 078 11. SRI JAGADISH REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O. LATE GURAPPA REDDY R/AT NO.259, 7TH MAIN WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU – 560 030 12. SRI. G. MURALIDHARA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O. LATE GURAPPA REDDY R/AT NO.143, 9TH MAIN WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU – 560 030 13. SMT. G. LEELAVATHI AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS W/O. SRI. MARI REDDY D/O. LATE GURAPPA REDDY R/AT NO.2/2, ACHETTIPALLI VILLAGE & POST, HOSUR TALUK KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT – 635 110 14. SMT. G. PRABHAVATHI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS W/O. J. RANGA REDDY NO.16/69, A-1, JAISHANKAR COLONY HOSUR – 635 109 15. SMT. G. VIJAYA LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS W/O. RAMAIAH REDDY NO.123, GURJAR GURJAR POST, VARTHUR BENGALURU EAST – 560 087 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R15 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 04.11.2019) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2019 (ANNEXURE-J) PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU IN OS.NO.3721/2005 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner being the fourth defendant in a declaration suit in O.S.No.3721/2005 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 17.09.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure – J whereby the learned VII Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru having rejected his applications in I.A.Nos.19 and 20, has refused to reopen the case of the plaintiff side and recall the PW-1 for further cross examination. Notice to respondent Nos.2 to 15 is disposed off with in terms of memo filed by the petitioner; respondent No.1 having entered caveat through his counsel, resists the writ petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, the reprieve needs to be granted to the petitioner by allowing the subject application on payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- to the first respondent/Caveator.
3. An otherwise order would result in a manifest injustice to the petitioner who complains and in the opinion of this Court justifiably about denial of a reasonable opportunity at the hands of the Court below.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; the impugned order is set at naught; the subject applications are favoured and the case having been reopened, the petitioner is permitted to conduct further cross-examination of PW-1 on 14.11.2019 in the Court itself and not through Commission.
It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to avail this last opportunity, for any reason whatsoever he will not be entitled to seek any more leniency.
All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY