IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.50028 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI. PRAKASH YADAV, S/O LALDHARI YADAV, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.17/1, BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT, R.M.V. 2ND STAGE, NAGASHETTY HALLI, SANJAYANAGARA POST, BANGALORE-560 094. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. THIMMEGOWDA N, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . SMT. T.ARUNA, W/O KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.106 7TH ‘A’ MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, 4TH STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BASAWSWARA NAGAR BANGALORE-560079.
2 . SRI D.KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O LATE DEVAPPA (DIED DURING PENDENCY OF THE SUIT AND HIS LRS ARE NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD) 3 . SMT. SHAKUNTHALAMMA, W/O VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, C/O D.KRISHNA MRUTHY, NO.57, SR ROAD, BASAPPA CIRCLE, V.V.PURAM, BANGALORE-560 004. …RESPONDENTS (SRI. S.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI . M.S.SHYAMSUNDAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
V/O DTD. 21.10.2019, NOTICE TO R2 & 3 DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1757/2014 ON I.A.NO.V AND VI ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE (CCH-32) AT BANGALORE, UNDER ANNEXURE- E AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner being the defendant in a declaration suit in O.S.No.1757/2014 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 11.10.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-E, whereby the learned Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, having rejected his applications in I.A.Nos.V & VI, in substance has denied to him the right of cross-examination. The first respondent-plaintiff having entered appearance through her counsel resists the Writ Petition. Notice to respondent Nos.2 & 3 who are other defendants is dispensed with in terms of note below Cause Title.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court grants indulgence in the matter because justice of the case warrants petitioner being permitted to cross-examine the witness P.W.1 who was examined on behalf of the plaintiff in the subject suit. Denying the right of cross-examination is a serious matter which Courts should not ordinarily resort to, save in exceptional circumstances into which the case of petitioner does not fit. Relief therefore, needs to be granted subject to condition & cost.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds; the impugned order is set at naught; petitioner’s subject application having been favoured, the case having been re- opened, petitioner is permitted to cross-examine PW.1 on the next date of hearing. If the petitioner does not avail this right, accordingly then the impugned order stands resurrected.
Sd/- JUDGE DS