Dismissed

Shri.Radhakrishna S/O Gadageppagouda Patil v. Shri.Rajendra S/O Venkappa Nyamagouda

Karnataka HC13 Feb 2019WP/105518/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a writ petition seeking to quash an order rejecting an application to recall a witness for cross-examination. The court held it was an abuse of process due to previous failure to cross-examine despite prior recall opportunities, allowing the writ petition to remain dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stood rejected; the hearing concluded without any further relief granted or order passed.

Shri.Radhakrishna S/O Gadageppagouda Patil… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR WRIT PETITION No.105518 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SHRI. RADHAKRISHNA S/O GADAGEPPAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/SERVICE, R/O: JAMKHANDI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. M. C. HUKKERI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

SHRI. RAJENDRA S/O VENKAPPA NYAMAGOUDA, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NANDI SUGAR FACTORY, POST: HOSUR, TQ: BIJAPUR, DIST: BIJAPUR.

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON I.A.NO.27, IN O.S.NO.153/2011, PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI, AT:JAMKHANDI, ON 22.09.2018, VIDE ANNEXURE-"E".

¶14

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶18

The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 22.09.2018 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamakhandi on I.A.No.27 filed under section 151 of CPC praying to recall D.W.2 by directing to submit himself for crossexamination.

¶19

The Trial Court, after perusing the material on record, has opined that the order-sheet reveals that on two earlier occasions D.W.2 was recalled i.e., on 02.06.2016 and 18.11.2016 and despite D.W.2 being recalled on two occasions, the plaintiff/petitioner herein has not utilized the opportunities to subject him to cross-examination. That the instant application is nothing but a repeat of the earlier applications and that the Trial Court placing reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 2016 (4) KCCR 3154, in the case of

¶20

: 3 :

¶21

Gayathri v. M. Girish, was pleased to reject the

¶22

application.

¶23

This Court in the reported judgment has

¶24

been pleased to reject the application on the ground that two opportunities for recalling witness and not utilizing the same is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. There can be no disagreement with the said preposition. Even otherwise, the instant application is totally bereft of bona fides . Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the evidence of D.W.2 is critical. If that be so, the petitioner, who is plaintiff, was expected to act with alacrity and diligence. It is seen that the impugned order was passed in September – 2018 and several months have lapsed since then. If the plaintiff/petitioner herein was of the opinion that the cross-examination of D.W.2 was critical, he would at-least made an honest attempt at the earliest point of time. It is seen that the evidence of

¶25

: 4 :

¶26

D.W.2 has been completed five years ago and if the instant application is allowed, same would be a licence to abuse the process of the Court. Hence, writ petition stands rejected with the costs of Rs.2,000/-.

¶27

The said costs shall be deposited within two weeks in the account of Advocates Association, Library Fund, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad.

¶28

On the earnest request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the portion of the order, imposing costs, is withdrawn.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

yan

Shri.Radhakrishna S/O Gadageppagouda Patil v. Shri.Rajendra S/O Venkappa Nyamagouda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Radhakrishna S/O Gadageppagouda Patil v. Shri.Rajendra S/O Venkappa Nyamagouda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashfak Shafi Ahamed Vs Mohammed Sab Chand Sab Mangaluru

Venkappa S/O. Sateppa Biradar Patil Vs Sattewwa W/O. Hanmant @ Hanmantgouda Sanagoudar

Venkappa S/O. Veerabhadrappa Ugarkhod Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Shri.Uttam S/O Chandrakant Sanadi Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Arun Jaiswal (Meerapuraiaya) Vs Sri Chandrashekhar W/O

Anita W/O Kandi Hemaraddi Vs Sajjanna Ganigera