Allowed

Sainath Education Trust v. Ramyashree K

Karnataka HC26 Jul 2021WP/14024/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Karnataka High Court permitted the discharge of a witness in a protracted civil suit to enable cross-examination and directed the lower court to expeditiously dispose of the suit within six months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to tender witness DW.1 for cross-examination on 29.07.2021; Civil Court directed to expeditiously dispose of suit within six months.

Sainath Education Trust Vs Ramyashree K — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.14024/2020 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SAINATH EDUCATION TRUST A REGISTERED PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 19^TH CROSS, 7^TH MAIN, BTM 2^ND STAGE, N S PALYA, BANGALORE 560076 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR GOVIND B CHEBBI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O BASAPPA CHEBBI, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO 100, 34^TH MAIN, II CROSS, DOLLARS SCHEME, BTM I STAGE, BENGALURU 560068

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE) AND :

¶10

1 . RAMYASHREE K DAUGHTER OF R KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 3A, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, VIJAYA BANK COLONY, SARVABOWMANAGARA, IIM POST, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560076

¶11

¶12

2 . PAVAN KUMAR G CHEBBI S/O GOVIND B CHEBBI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 48/8, 27^TH MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, BTM 1^ST STAGE, BENGALURU 560076

¶13

3 . KRISHNA R S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 3A, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, VIJAYA BANK COLONY, SARVABOWMANAGARA, IIM POST, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560076

¶14

4 . TEJASHREE K D/O R KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 3A, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, VIJAYA BANK COLONY, SARVABOWMANAGARA, IIM POST, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560076 ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(By SMT. AKHILA M.S. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KASHYAP. N NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 TO R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 25.11.2020 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS ANNX-A ON IA.NO.14 TO 16 CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATIONS AS PRAYED BY THE PETITIONER CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE I.A. NO.14 TO 16 FILED IN OS. 146/2011.

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Akhila M.S., learned counsel for the first respondent are heard, and the impugned order is perused.

¶21

The petitioner, who is the first defendant in O.S. No.146/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal [for short, 'the Civil Court'], is aggrieved by the Civil Court's order dated 25.11.2020 rejecting its applications in I.A. Nos.14-16. The petitioner has filed these applications for recalling the order dated 26.02.2019 and reopening the case for its evidence, for discarding the evidence of DW.1 [a witness examined on its behalf] and for permission to examine the power of

¶22

¶23

attorney of DW.1 [Sri. Sudhir G. Angur] in support of its defence.

¶24

Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil submits that the

¶25

witness, DW.1, was present for cross examination on 11.01.2019, but his evidence was taken as closed with the learned counsel for the first respondent requesting for adjournment. Thereafter, the first respondent filed an application for recalling which was allowed and the matter listed on 26.09.2019. The witness, DW.1 could not appear on this date because he was in Police custody and therefore, with the suit being posted for Judgment after arguments were heard on behalf of the plaintiff-first respondent, the petitioner has filed the aforesaid three applications. These circumstances would definitely establish bonafides of DW.1 insofar as failure to appear on 26.09.2019. However, presently DW.1 is now released on bail and he can tender himself for cross examination. The Presiding Officer who

¶26

¶27

rejected the subject applications is also transferred and the matter will have to be re-heard by the incumbent Officer. Therefore, the writ petition could be disposed of permitting the witness, DW 1, to tender himself for cross-examination.

¶28

Ms. Akhila M.S., learned counsel for the first respondent, submits what has transpired between January 2019 and December 2019 is emphasized, but the conduct of DW.1 will have to be examined in the light of the fact that the suit was posted for arguments on multiple occasions even before DW.1 offered himself for cross examination. The learned counsel points out that the suit is of the year 2011 and the suit has been protracted for almost over a decade.

¶29

However, because of the present

¶30

circumstances emphasized by Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, the unanimous submission is that the petition be

¶31

¶32

disposed of observing that the applications are now rendered infructuous permitting the witness, DW.1, to tender himself for cross examination with the directions to the Civil Court to expeditiously dispose of the suit on merits. Therefore the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

[a] The petition stands disposed of;

¶35

[b] The petitioner shall be at liberty to tender its witness, DW.1 for cross examination on the next date of hearing viz., 29.07.2021 and if for any reason the cross examination cannot be commenced on that date, DW.1 shall tender himself for cross examination on such date as the Civil Court may deem it fit;

¶36

[c] The Civil Court shall take all necessary measures as would be necessary for

¶37

¶38

expeditious disposal of the suit on merits and in any event within six [6] months from 29.07.2021.

¶39

SD/JUDGE

¶40

AN/-

Sainath Education Trust v. Ramyashree K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sainath Education Trust v. Ramyashree K

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

K. v. Sreedhara Variyar Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri Puttaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Girish John Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Parvathamma Vs the Chief Secretry, Government of Karnataka

J S Rajanna Vs Susheela

Sri K Rajashekharaiah Vs Smt Aruna