IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.57974 – 57975/2018 (GM – CPC) BETWEEN:
R.SIDDAPPA S/O RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O KELLODU, KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577527. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI A.V.GANGADHARAPPA, ADV.] AND:
SMT.P.ANITHA D/O PARASHURAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O BAGURU, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577527. …RESPONDENT THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.10.2015 ON I.A.NO.I ORIGINALLY PASSED BY THE COURT OF ITINERARY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE HOSADURGA IN C.MISC.NO.2/2015 NOW TRANSFERRED AND RENUMBERED AS C.MISC.NO.13/2016 PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOSADURGA AND RENUMBERED AS C.MISC.NO.13/2016 CERTIFIED COPY VIDE ANNX-L.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has assailed the orders dated 05.10.2015 and 02.11.2018 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 5 in C.Misc.No.13/2016 pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Hosadurga.
2. The petitioner had filed O.S.No.2/2014 under Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC read with Section 5(3) of the Special Marriage Act seeking for a decree of declaration to declare that the marriage solemnized on 10.08.2012 with the respondent as null and void and not enforceable in law. The Court passed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.2/2014 declaring the marriage solemnized on 10.08.2012 between the parties as void on 28.02.2015. The respondent herein filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC in C.Misc.No.2/2015 to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.2/2014, which came to be transferred and renumbered as C.Misc.13/2016 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Hosadurga. In the said proceedings, an ex-parte order on I.A.No.1 was passed staying the operation of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.2/2014 until further orders. The petitioner filed objections to the main petition and I.A.No.5 was filed by the petitioner seeking permission to file objections to I.A.No.1 which came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the order dated 05.10.2015 passed on I.A.No.1 as well as the order dated 02.11.2018 passed on I.A.No.5.
3. Learned counsel Sri. A.V. Gangadharappa appearing for the petitioner would point out that the right of the petitioner to cross-examine P.W.1 has been defeated in rejecting the I.A.No.5 filed by the petitioner seeking permission to file objections to I.A.No.1. The orders passed on I.A.No.1 without hearing the petitioner is unjustifiable and the same warrants interference by this Court.
4. Indubitably the matter is listed for respondent/petitioner’s evidence. It is hard to accept the contentions of the petitioner that no opportunity was provided to file objections to I.A.No.1 more particularly, when objections were filed by the petitioner to the main petition seeking permission through I.A.No.2. It is discernable that I.A.Nos.3 and 4 were filed by the petitioner to reopen the case to cross-examine PW.1. Despite the said application being allowed, the petitioner again sought for an adjournment for cross- examination of PW.1. Rejecting the said prayer, the cross-examination of PW.1 is taken as nil. In such circumstances, the plea of the petitioner inasmuch as not providing an opportunity to cross-examine PW.1 does not hold any merit and on the other hand, it indicates the dilated tactics of the petitioner in procrastinating the matter. No jurisdictional error is found in the impugned order.
Accordingly, these writ petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR