IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.18014 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) & WRIT PETITION NO.24243 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1 . SRI S.N. RAVICHANDRA, S/O LATE SRI N.NAGASUBRAMANIAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 2 . SMT. PRIYA RAVICHANDRA W/O MR.S.N.RAVICHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, BOTH R/AT NO.609, 11TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, J.P.NAGAR 3RD PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078 (BY SRI VIVEKANANDA H.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT R.J.VIMALA, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S 1. MR.G.M.BHAGATH SINGH S/O LATE SRI. H.G.MAHADESWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A NO.576, 10TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, J.P.NAGAR 3RD PHASE, BANGALORE-560 078.
2 . MR. G.M.RANJITH SINGH, S/O LATE SRI. H.M.MAHADESWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.576, 10TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, J.P.NAGAR 3RD PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078.
(BY SMT N.K.KAMALA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENTS SRI. B.KESHAVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON I.A.NO.12 AND 13 DATED 12.04.2017 IN O.S.NO.2902/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, BANGALORE AT ANNEXUREID; AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners being the plaintiffs in a specific performance suit in O.S.No.2902/2006 founded on an agreement to sell dated 18.07.2003 are complaining to the writ court that by virtue of impugned order they have lost a reasonable opportunity of establishing their claim in the suit by further examining DW.1; the impugned order at Annexure-D is made by the learned XI Additional City Civil Judge Bangalore, on 12.04.2017. After service of notice, both the respondents having entered appearance through their counsel resist the writ petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, reprieve needs to be granted to the petitioner for the following reasons:
a) the suit is for specific performance; DW1 was partly examined on 20.03.2017 however, the further examination was taken up as nil after refusing the request for an adjournment as sought for by their counsel; their subject applications in I.A.Nos.12 & 13 filed soon thereafter i.e., on 12.04.2017 ought to have been leniently considered by the learned trial Judge, regard being had to the nature of the suit, of course subject to payment of cost & condition; this not having been done, there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting indulgence of this court to set the injustice at naught.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds; the impugned order is quashed; petitioners subject applications having been favoured, they need to be permitted to further cross-examine DW1 on payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the defendant No.1(a) ie., respondent No.2 herein within a period of one month, failing which, the impugned order now quashed shall stand resurrected and further that the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment for availing the opportunity of further examination, given herein above.
However, it is open to the Court below to grant adjournment in the suit on request of 2nd respondent i.e., defendant No.1(a) keeping in view his mobility constraint.
Since the suit is of the year 2006, a request is made to the learned trial Judge to try & dispose off the same within an outer limit of one year, all contentions of the parties being kept open.
Sd/- JUDGE DS