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.50675 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI. BHARATH G. PATEL, S/O SRI. GOVINDBHAI PATEL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S BHAVESH TRADERS, JAGGERY MERCHANT, C/O BALAKRISHNA MURTHY, SRI SAI NILAYA, 1ST FLOOR, 9TH CROSS, V.V.NAGAR, MANDYA – 571401.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. GAURAV K.V., ADVOCATE FOR MS. ANUSHA NANDISH, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI. PARASMAL S/O LATE SRI. DHARAM CHAND, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, JAGGERY MERCHANT, RESIDING AT NO.1805, 1ST CROSS, BANDIGOWDA LAYOUT, MANDYA - 571401.
... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.04.2019 ON I.A.NO.VI PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANDYA IN O.S.NO.25/2014 (ANNEXURE-A); AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the defendant in a money suit in O.S.No.25/2014 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 14.10.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A, whereby, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mandya, having rejected his applications in I.A.Nos.7 & 8 filed under Section 151 and Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC, 1908, for reopening the case for purpose of recalling PW.1 to the witness box for further cross-examination.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition papers, this Court concurs with the reasoning of the Court below in denying relief to the petitioner. The Court below in its impugned order has stated as under and the same cannot be faltered:
“It is seen that, on 23.04.2019, this court has rejected the similar applications of defendant which were filed to recall PW.1 for the purpose of cross examination, on the ground of ill health of the counsel and the same has been rejected by holding that, no probable evidential materials were placed before the court. Now the similar applications by the defendant stating different circumstances for his inability to conduct cross examination of PW.1 cannot be entertained. As it is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for plaintiff that, defendant has not challenged order dated 23.04.2019, therefore the same has attained its finality. Under the circumstances, the defendant cannot come up with similar applications on different grounds, hence the above applications are not maintainable, accordingly point No.1 is answered in negative.”
The above apart, the orders of the kind being discretionary decisions which do not merit grant of interference.
In the above circumstances the writ petition being devoid of merits, is rejected in limine.
Sd/- JUDGE DS