IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.310/2017 BETWEEN SRI GAUTAMCHAND D JAIN S/O DALICHAND JI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, M/S MAN MANDIR SELECTION, NO.105, “AVENUE PLAZA”, CANARA BANK BUILDING, II FLOOR, AVENUE ROAD, BENGALURU-560002.
SRI GAUTAMCHAND D JAIN S/O DALICHAND JI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, M/S M.M.SAREE CENTRE, NO.15, SANKESHWAR TOWER, VENKATARAYAPPA LANE, C.T. STREET CROSS, J.M.ROAD, BENGALURU-560002. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. P D SURANA, ADVOCATE) AND M/S SREE ENTERPRISES A CO-OWNERSHIP CONCERN, OWNING MULTI-STORIED SHOPPING-CUM-OFFICE COMPLEX, POPULARLY KNOWN AS “SREE COMPLEX”, NO.2 TO 7, E.S.LANE, CHICKPET CROSS, BENGALURU-560053, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING CO-OWNERS SRI. P.NAGARAJ, SRI T.R.SUBBARAMA SETTY AND SRI N.N.G.K.GUPTA. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V B SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) * * * THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED; 17.07.2017 PASSED ON IA IN SC.NO.579/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES BENGALURU, REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR RECALL OF PW1 FOR FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION.
THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ‘ADMISSION’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner is before this Court, being aggrieved by the Order of the trial Court dated 17.07.2017, rendered on the interlocutory application preferred under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC., praying for recalling the Order dated 23.03.2017 and to permit the defendant to cross-examine P.W.1.
3. The trial Court after taking note of the numerous adjournments, had deemed it fit to reject the application. It is submitted that the impugned order is passed ignoring the fact that the counsel for the defendant was suffering from bulge disc, which causes persistent pain and thereby disabling him by conducting cross-examination over an extended period.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court ought to have taken into consideration the health factor, which was put-forth by the party for seeking several adjournments for completing the cross- examination. He would submit that the trial Court had not adverted to these facts while rejecting the application.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would fairly submit that it is a case of protraction of the proceedings by the petitioner/defendant and that if the petitioner consents to complete the cross-examination within a stipulated period, he would have no objection for the matter being remitted and taken up for further cross- examination of P.W.1.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is placed on record.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if fifteen days time is granted, he would complete the cross-examination of P.W.1. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court could also be directed to dispose of the suit within three months thereafter.
8. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is placed on record.
9. The order impugned herein is set aside. The application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is allowed. The trial Court is directed to recall P.W.1 and permit to cross-examine P.W.1. The cross-examination of P.W.1 shall be completed within fifteen days from the next date of hearing and the trial Court shall endeavour to hear and dispose of S.C. No.579/2016 within three months thereafter.
The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE CT-HR Ksm*