Sri. Rajashekaraiah v. Kareshanaiah
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioners challenged the civil court's order allowing evidence from an un-crossexamined witness to be considered later and permitting the respondent to examine his attorney. The High Court quashed the observation allowing future consideration but recognized the power to examine an attorney.
What did the court decide?
The civil court's observation allowing evidence of PW.1 to be considered at final adjudication was quashed. Leave to examine attorney was permitted subject to just exceptions.
What the court decided
- 1 -
WP No. 47195 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 47195 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
- SRI. RAJASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O. BASAPPA, R/AT 32-E, 13TH MAIN VIJAYA NAGARA, BANGALORE 560040.
Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- SMT. ANITHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS W/O. B MANJUNATH, R/AT NO. 19, 9TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN PRASHANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE 560079.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court's observation leaving the evidentiary value of an un-cross-examined witness open to final adjudication is permissible under law.
Whether a respondent can examine his power of attorney holder as a witness to substitute an un-cross-examined witness.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Sri. Rajashekaraiah
- respondent
Kareshanaiyah
Coram
B M Shyam Prasad
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Karnataka HC
- Decided on
- · April
- Registered
- Case no.
- WP/47195/2017
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court