Held that bona fide lapse in filing objections warrants condonation of delay. Writ petition allowed quashing impugned order. PW.1 recalled; objections admitted subject to cost.
Order dated 14.09.2016 in HRC No.1/2014 set aside. Delay in objections condoned; PW.1 recalled subject to Rs. 1000 cost.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION No.54013/2016(HRC)
BETWEEN:
MR. M.K. PRABHAKAR S/O MR.MODI KRISHNA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT No.7/301, GROUND FLOOR, SUBRAYANAGUDI BEEDI, KOLLEGALA CITY AND TALUK-571 440. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KESHAVA MURTHY.B, ADVOCATE)
AND :
SMT. RAMALAKSHMI W/O MR.H.N.SANATHKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT No.7/301, I FLOOR, SUBRAYANAGUDI BEEDI, KOLLEGALA CITY & TALUK-571 440. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RUPESH KUMAR.S, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN HRC No.1/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLLEGALA.
2
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner, arrayed as the respondent in HRC No.1/2014 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC., Kollegala, filed this petition to set aside the order dated 14.09.2016 passed by the learned trial Judge. By the said order, an application is filed by the petitioner, under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to recall PW.1 and another application filed, under Section 151 of the CPC., to consider the annexed statement of objections by condoning the delay were rejected with cost.
3
Learned advocate for the respondent acknowledges the receipt of the said demand draft.
4
objections to HRC No.1/2014 and as a consequence, to permit the recall of PW.1 for cross-examination by subjecting the petitioner to pay cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the respondent - landlady.
of the case, it is ordered as follows:
The petition is allowed and the common order dated 14.09.2016 passed in HRC No.01/2014 by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Kollegala, is set aside. Applications filed on 10.02.2016 i.e., one under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code and another under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC., are allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.1000/-.
The statement of objections filed to the main petition along with the aforesaid application is directed to be accepted and made part of the record. PW.1 stands recalled and shall keep himself present for crossexamination before the trial Court on the next hearing date or at the adjourned date, as the
5
case may be. Without seeking any adjournment, as the landlady is a senior citizen and the case is required to be decided with expedition, the tenant shall cross examine PW1 on the next hearing or the adjourned hearing date, as the case may be, subject to the convenience of the learned Trial Judge.
Both the parties shall extend cooperation to the learned trial Judge to expedite the proceedings and decide the main case before the end of April 2017.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sma
3 issues framed by the court
Whether court can condone delay in filing statement of objections via S. 151 CPC and permit recall of witness for cross-examination.
Whether order rejecting application to condone delay under letter of comity provisions should be set aside.
Whether parties should expedite main suit proceedings under Article 227 CPC.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M.K. Prabhakar
Smt. Ramalakshmi
A.N.Venugopala Gowda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
