Dismissed

Smt. Gangawa W/O Chandrashekarappa Abbigeri v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC19 Feb 2021RP/100068/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review petition filed under CPC Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114, the petitioner challenged a second appellate decree based on alleged failure to cross-examine a witness who gave unassailed testimony below. The court held the seventh judgment dated 02.06.2017 was not erroneous on the face of record.

What did the court decide?

Petition is dismissed. Prayer for review of the judgment dated 02.06.2017 is rejected.

Smt. Gangawa W/O Chandrashekarappa Abbigeri… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

R.P. NO. 100068/2017 IN R.S.A. NO. 100726/2016 (DEC/INJ)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT.GANGAWWA, W/O CHANDRASHEKARAPPA ABBIGERI, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O ABBIGERI COMPOUND, NEAR VEERASHAIVA LIBRARY, GADAG, DIST: GADAG-582101.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI DINESH M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GADAG DISTRICT, GADAG-582101.

¶12

THE TAHASHILDAR, TQ. & DIST: GADAG-582101.

¶13

THE MERCHANTS LIBERAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, GADAG-582101.

¶14

THE SALE OFFICER, THE MERCHANTS LIBERAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

BY ITS MANAGER, GADAG-582101.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 02.06.2017 PASSED IN RSA NO.100726/2016 (DEC/INJ) ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD.

¶19

THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING I.A. THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard the petitioner’s counsel. Submission of Sri Dinesh M.Kulkarni is that the petitioner adduced evidence in the first appellate court on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. She was not cross-examined. Therefore, her testimony remained unassailed. The unimpeached testimony was not brought to the notice of this court while arguing in the second appeal. Therefore, this is a good ground for granting review of the judgment dated 02.06.2017 in RSA No.100726/2016.

¶22

: 3 :

¶23

Even though a witness is not cross-examined, if the court can come to conclusion that the evidence given by a witness in his examination-in-chief is unbelievable, it can pass an order dismissing the application for condoning delay. I do not think that the ground that learned counsel pointed out now can be considered for granting review. There is no error apparent on the face of record. Petition is dismissed.

¶24

SD/JUDGE

¶25

CLK

Smt. Gangawa W/O Chandrashekarappa Abbigeri v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gangawa W/O Chandrashekarappa Abbigeri v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khayum Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Rahul Thonse Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Muniyappa Vs State of Karnataka

Gadigeppa S/O Shivappa Kori Vs Kumari Vindi D/O Shivappa Kori

Keshari W/O Chandrashekar Vs Mallikarjunayya S/O Gurusiddayya Rabakavimath

Usman Karim Mulla Vs Appalal