Remanded

Sri Channaiah v. Sri Channaiah

Karnataka HC15 Dec 2021WP/14770/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court, under Article 227, examined a writ petition challenging an order rejecting a request to recall witnesses for cross-examination in a succession certificate suit. The court quashed the impugned order, directed the trial court to allow cross-examination, and set an eight-week timeline to complete evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order in O.S.No.108/2015 quashed on the condition that petitioners cross-examine witnesses without further adjournments and complete evidence within eight weeks.

Sri Channaiah Vs Sri Channaiah — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 14770/2021 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI CHANNAIAH S/O. SRI. CHANNABASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT MADIKE CHILUR, SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 216.

¶8

SHIVANANDAIAH S/O. GURUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT MADIKE CHILUR, SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 216.

¶9

L M RAJAIAH S/O. LOKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT MADIKE CHILUR, SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 216.

¶10

RENUKAIAH S/O. BASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT MADIKE CHILUR,

¶11

¶12

SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 216.

¶13

ESHWARAIAH S/O. BASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT MADIKE CHILUR, SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 216.

¶14

... PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA BHAT M., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND :

¶17

SRI CHANNAIAH S/O. CHANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HOSUDI, SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 222.

¶18

S P GAJENDRA SWAMY S/O. LATE. PARAMESHWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO. 19/B, HUDCO COLONY, BHADRVATHI – 577 301.

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.UMESH MOODIMANI., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.V. PRAKASH., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶21

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.5.2021 PASSED ON IA NO.X AND IA NO.IX IN O.S.NO.108/2015 ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SHIMOGGA CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SAME IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G AS THE SAME SUFFERS FROM ERRORS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD; DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO ALLOW IA NO.X AND IA NO.XI FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioners are the defendants in proceedings under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which is presently registered as a suit in O.S.No.108/2015 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga (for short 'the civil Court') . The civil Court by the impugned order dated 24.5.2021 has rejected the petitioners' application under Section 151 CPC for reopening of the case and for recalling the respondents' witnesses viz ., PW.2 and PW.3 for crossexamination. Sri Subramanya Bhat and Sri Umesh Moolimani, who appears on behalf of Sri S.V.Prakash,

¶26

¶27

the learned counsel for the parties are heard with their consent for final disposal.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioners, while not disputing that these witnesses are not cross-examined despite being given an opportunity on their applications, relies upon the affirmation in the affidavits to canvass that the petitioners were constrained in visiting their learned counsel and also in attending to the case because of the measures taken with the onset of Pandemic because of Covid-19. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners are taking advantage of the fact that the witnesses are either a deed writer or an elderly citizen and the petitioners cannot gloss over the fact that they were in similar circumstances permitted to crossexamine these witnesses.

¶29

The merits of the impugned order is examined in the light of the rival submissions and the fact that the

¶30

¶31

controversy in the proceedings before the trial Court relates to the issuance of Succession Certificate for assets left behind by a certain Shivagangamma with the respondents asserting testamentary benefit. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioners must have another opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on terms so that there is no protraction even after the conclusion of the proceedings before the civil Court on the ground that the petitioners should have been given another opportunity. Therefore, the following

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.5.2021 in O.S.No.108/2015 is quashed allowing the petitioners' application but on the condition that the petitioners shall cross-examine the witnesses without seeking further adjournments and they shall complete their evidence within a period of eight [8]

¶34

¶35

weeks from the date of closure of the petitioners'

¶36

evidence.

¶37

SD/- JUDGE

¶38

Sri Channaiah v. Sri Channaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Channaiah v. Sri Channaiah

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

S Muralidhar Rao Vs G Krishnaveni

Sri Nusrath Ulla Khan Vs M B Anwar Sab Since Dead by His Lrs Smt Raziya Begum

Sri B R Anjan Kumar Vs Sri B C Somasekhar

Mr Nimish Bhatia Vs Mr Deepak Shindhe

Mr G R Natraj Vs Wilasa Apartment Owners Association

Smt Anandamma Vs Sri M Prithviraj