IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO.177/2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI. S. KEMPANNA, S/O. LATE SRI. SONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/A. SIDDANAHALLI VILLAGE, NELAVAGILU POST, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PIN-562 122.
(BY SRI. PAPI REDDY G. ADV.) AND:
1. SRI. MANJUNATHA, S/O. LATE SRI. SONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A. SIDDANAHALLI VILLAGE, NELAVAGILU POST, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PIN-562 122.
2. SRI. RAVINDRA, S/O. LATE SRI. SONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, ... PETITIONER R/A. SIDDANAHALLI VILLAGE, NELAVAGILU POST, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PIN-562 122.
(BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRA CHOODA, ADV) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAKOTE VIDE ANNEXURE-E PASSED IN O.S. NO.29/2011 ON I.A. NO.1 AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff against the order dated 13.12.2016 on I.A. No.1 under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure made in O.S. No.29/2011, rejecting the application to permit further cross-examination of DW-1.
2. The present petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, morefully described in the schedule contending that he is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, etc., The defendants filed written statement denying the entire plaint averments and contended that they are the absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule property.
3. When the matter was posted for cross- examination of DW-1 on 19.08.2016, it was closed with a warning to proceed cross-examination of DW-1 without repeating the questions. Therefore, the present application was filed by the plaintiff under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, permit the plaintiff to further cross-examine DW-1, contending that the counsel for the plaintiff was cross- examining DW-1 and concocting some documents, the Hon’ble Court intervened in the middle of the cross- examination, objecting the counsel not to read over the documents and subsequently closed. Therefore, the present application is filed. The said application was resisted by the defendants by filing objections and specifically contending that though the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction, the counsel for the plaintiff dragging the cross-examination by repeating the questions. Therefore, the trial court was justified in rejecting the application mainly on the ground that the counsel for the plaintiff was repeating the questions again and again and he has not changed his attitude and unnecessarily wasting the court’s time and therefore stopped the cross-examination. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri. Papi Reddy G., learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he will instruct his counter part to proceed with the further cross-examination of DW-1 without repeating questions and without wasting the Court’s time. The said submission is placed on record.
6. Sri. M.B. Chandra Chooda, learned counsel for the respondents sought to justify the order passed by the trial court.
7. Without adverting to merits and demerits of the case, it is suffice to direct the trial court to permit the plaintiff to further cross-examine DW-1 without repeating the questions and counsel for the plaintiff is directed to cross-examine DW-1 only relevant questions and he shall not repeat the questions again and again and should not waste the court’s time.
8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 13.12.2016 passed by the trial court on I.A.No.1 filed under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure made in O.S. No.29/2011 is quashed. The plaintiff is permitted for further cross-examination of DW-1 on the next date of hearing without dragging further and counsel for the plaintiff shall keep in mind while cross- examining DW-1, he should ask relevant questions and shall not repeat the questions again and again.
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE snc