Allowed

Sri. G. Ramakrishnamraju S/O Ram Raju v. Smt. Yallamma W/O Shankrappa

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2021WP/100458/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging the disposal of a hostile witness evidence application. The court modified the impugned order to discard the hostile witness evidence, granted liberty to adduce additional evidence, and directed the trial court to decide the suit on merits.

What did the court decide?

Discard evidence of hostil witness DW2, liberty to adduce other evidence, liberty to respondents to cross-examine and adduce evidence, suit to be disposed on merits.

Sri. G. Ramakrishnamraju S/O Ram Raju Vs Smt. Yallamma… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.100458/2018 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. G. RAMAKRISHNAMRAJU S/O RAM RAJU AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT: HARAPANAHALLI, DIST: DAVANAGERE, NOW R/AT: ANEGUNDI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT. YALLAMMA W/O SHANKRAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: ANEGUNDI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶12

SRI.DODDA MALLESHI S/O MAREPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: BASAPATTANA, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶13

SRI.MALLESHI S/O MAREPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: BASAPATTANA, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶14

SRI.HULUGEPPA S/O MAREPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: BASAPATTANA,TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶15

¶16

SMT.RENUKA D/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: SAYINAGAR, GANGAVATHI, DIST KOPPAL.

¶17

SRI.SHANMUKAPPA S/O NAGAPPA WADDAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: ANEGUNDI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶18

SRI.SHANKRAPPA S/O NAGAPPA WADDAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: ANEGUNDI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶19

SMT.HANUMAKKA W/O NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: BUKASAGAR, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI.

¶20

SMT.LAKSHMIDEVI W/O CHIDANANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: HOSADAROJI, TQ: SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI.

¶21

SMT.KRISHNAMMA W/O ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: ALLIPURA, BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI.

¶22

SMT.PARWATHAMMA W/O RAJU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: IMRAPURA,TQ: SHIRAGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.M. TONNE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; R6 TO R9 & R11 ARE SERVED; R5 & R10 DISPENSED WITH)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI IN O.S.NO.78 OF 2013 DATED 30.11.2017 ON I.A.NO.17 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF

¶25

¶26

CPC., COPY AS PER ANNEXURE-"G" AND ALLOW APPLICATION BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION.

¶27

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

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This petition is directed against the impugned

¶30

order dated 30.11.2017passed on I.A.No.17 in O.S.No.78/2013 by the Senior Civil Judge,

¶31

Gangavathi (for short, ‘the trial Court’) whereby the said application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 for cross-examination of his own witness, DW2 on the ground that the said witness has turned hostile was rejected by the trial Court.

¶32

After arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/defendant No.1 does not intend to rely upon and continue the evidence of DW2 as an witness on behalf of the petitioner/defendant No.1 and the same may be discarded reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to adduce additional oral and documentary evidence in support of his defence. The

¶33

¶34

said submission of learned counsel is placed on record.

¶35

Per contra, learned counsel for

¶36

respondents/plaintiffs would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

In view of the aforesaid facts and

¶38

circumstances and submission made at the bar, I deem it just and appropriate of dispose of this petition.

¶39

In the result, I pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i. The petition is disposed off.

¶42

ii. Impugned order dated 30.11.2017 is hereby modified by directing the trial Court to discard the evidence of DW2 who was examined as an witness on behalf of petitioner and by reserving liberty to adduce such other oral and documentary evidence on his behalf as

¶43

¶44

he may so choose. Liberty is also reserved in favour of the respondents/ plaintiffs to cross-examine any other witness examined on behalf of the petitioner and also adduce any further evidence.

¶45

iii. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on merits in accordance with law.

¶46

SD JUDGE

¶47

CLK

Sri. G. Ramakrishnamraju S/O Ram Raju v. Smt. Yallamma W/O Shankrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. G. Ramakrishnamraju S/O Ram Raju v. Smt. Yallamma W/O Shankrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kum.Ranjana Bala Naik Vs the Commissioner/Appellate Authority

Ravishankar S/O Basavaraj Bhooplapur Vs Captian Suresh S/O Sadashiv Hallikere

The Terdal Minority Co-Operative Vs the State of Karnataka

Concan Specialised Engineering Vs Military Engineer Services

Shri.Yallappa S/O Satappa Dabbagol Vs Smt.Gangavva W/O Satteppa Dabbagol

Sadanand S/O Narayan Naik Vs District Legal Services Authority