The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the refusal to allow further cross-examination of a witness in a succession matter. The bench held that the enquiry is limited to identifying legal representatives and no prejudice was caused.
Writ petition stands disposed of; no interference with the impugned order rejecting I.A. No. 24 is granted.
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 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1671 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
BOTH ARE R/AT DOOR NO.34 SIDDESHWARA NILAYA GUTALU ROAD, MANDYA CITY MANDYA DISTRICT PIN CODE-571 401.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HEGDE V S, ADV.)
Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE KARIGOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY PROPOSED PAINTIFFS
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT CHATRALINGANA DODDI VILLAGE MALLANAYAKANAHALLI POST ATHGUR HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT PIN CODE-571428.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADV. FOR R1 & R2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02/01/2023 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND CJM AT MANDYA, ON I.A NO.24 FILED UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 OF CPC., IN O.S NO.167/2005, AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTIALLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FOR RECALLING FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
and learned counsel Sri.H.C.Shivaramu for respondents.
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 02.01.2023 rejecting I.A.No.24 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC in O.S.No.167/2005 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya whereby I.A.No.24 request for further cross-examination of C.W.3.
documents to C.W.3. Therefore, I.A.No.24 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC was filed to recall C.W.3 for further cross-examination. Learned counsel would submit that the trial Court committed an error in rejecting the said application for further cross-examination of C.W.3. Further, confronting those documents would be necessary
to determine validity of the Will as well as legal representatives of Gowramma.
NC: 2023:KHC:26838 WP No. 1671 of 2023
With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
SD/JUDGE
MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order rejecting an application for further cross-examination of a witness during an enquiry into legal representation.
Whether the current evidence focuses on proving the validity of the Will or merely determining the legal representatives of the deceased.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. C K Kariyappa & Smt. B.Rathnamma
Smt. Gowramma (since deceased) & Others
S.G. Pandit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
