The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the trial court's refusal to allow a defendant to record evidence through a court commissioner. The court found the witness's condition insufficient to warrant such appointment and upheld the trial court's order.
Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.5281 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
R/OF ARABAGATTE VILLAGE,
HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 217.
W/O RAMESHAPPA, MALEGERE MANE D/O LATE K.G. CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/OF NUGGI MALLAPURA VILLAGE, SAWALANGA POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 201.
S/O LATE K.G. CHANNBASAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/OF ARABAGATTE VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 217.
W/O LATE PARAMESHWARAPPPA D/O LATE K.G. CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
2
R/OF GOVINAKOVI VILLAGE AND POST, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 217.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE R/OF ARABAGATTE VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 217.
3
W/O RUDRESHAPPA D/O LATE K.G. MAHESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/OF SURAHONNE VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 217.
….RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR S.K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; NOTICE TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 11.04.2022)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03RD MARCH, 2021 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HONNALI IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.68 OF 2011 VIDE ANNEUXRE-E, THEREBY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER XXVI RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE VIDE ANNEXURE-C FILED BY THE PETITIONERS; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed by legal representatives of the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2, challenging the order
4
dated 03rd March, 2021 in Original Suit No.68 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Honnali (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), dismissing IA.12.
5
is bed ridden. Therefore, it is required to record the evidence through the Commissioner. Accordingly, he pressed for allowing the application IA.12 filed by the defendant No.2.
6
Commissioner to record evidence. In that view of the matter, the trial court has rightly rejected application IA.12 filed by the defendant No.2. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/JUDGE
ARK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the application for recording evidence through a court commissioner due to the witness's age and medical condition was legally justified.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Girijamma and others
Smt. Basamma and others
ES Indiresl
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
