Allowed

Sri.S.Nagaraju v. Smt.Mangala

Karnataka HC11 Jan 2024WP/2941/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash an order rejecting an application for recall of a respondent for further cross-examination in a custody case. The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and granted one last opportunity for cross-examination, directing the trial court to conclude proceedings within three months.

What did the court decide?

The petition allowed; the impugned order of 02.01.2023 quashed; respondent No.1 to be cross-examined on 24.01.2024; proceedings to conclude within 3 months thereafter.

Sri.S.Nagaraju Vs Smt.Mangala — Child Custody and Guardianship | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:1460 WP No. 2941 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 2941 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. S.NAGARAJU, S/O LATE SANNA SUBBEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS.

¶9

SMT. PREMA, W/O S. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.

¶10

BOTH R/AT ARALAKUPPE VILLAGE, CHINAKURALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 438.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. K.L. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. MANGALA, W/O PRABHUDEVA N.G., AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.457, HOSABEEDHI, NAGUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 438.

¶16

SRI. VIVEKANANDA, S/O S. NAGARAJU,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:1460 WP No. 2941 of 2023

¶19

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT ARALAKUPPE VILLAGE, CHINAKURALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 438.

¶20

SRI. RAMAKRISHNA, S/O CHIKKALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKAMARALI VILLAGE, CHINAKURALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 438.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 AND R3 SERVED)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER ON IA 14 AND 15 PASSED BY THE HONBLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA, ON 02/01/2023 IN G AND WC.NO.1/2016, VIDE ANNEXURE-G.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioners are before this Court, seeking the following prayers:

¶27

"(a) Issue an Order, Direction or Writ, in the nature of a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quashing the order on I.A. 14 and 15 passed by the Hon'ble Senior

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:1460 WP No. 2941 of 2023

¶29

Civil Judge & JMFC, Pandavapura, on 02- 01-2023 in G & WC.No.1/2016, vide Annexure-G.

¶30

(b) Pass any other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in favour of the petitioners; in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶31

Heard Sri. K.L. Sreenivas, learned counsel

¶32

appearing for the petitioners, Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.

¶33

The petitioners are parental grandparents, in whose custody, the child is. It transpires that respondent No.1 filed a petition against the present petitioners in G & WC No.1/2016 seeking custody of the child to the grandmother. The proceedings are on before the concerned Court.

¶34

What has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition is the rejection of an application in I.A.Nos.14 and 15 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the C.P.C. seeking recall of respondent No.1 for further cross-examination. The applications were filed in I.A.Nos.14 and 15. This comes to be rejected on 02.01.2023 on the score that the applications are filed as a ruse to drag the proceedings long after the cross-examination was over.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:1460 WP No. 2941 of 2023

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶38

submits that, if one opportunity is granted to the petitioners, they would further cross-examine respondent No.1 and conclude the proceedings within a time frame that would be fixed by this Court.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 though would refute the submissions contending that the petitioners have filed the subject application 3 1/2 years after the initial cross-examination. Therefore, the Court was right in rejecting the application. Be those submissions as they are.

¶40

What is being sought by the petitioners is further cross-examination of respondent No.1.

¶41

In the light of the affidavit so filed before the concerned Court and the reasons stated therein, I deem it appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioners to cross-examine respondent No.1.

¶42

Since both the parties are represented, they shall appear before the concerned Court on 24.01.2024, on which date, the Court shall permit further cross-examination of PW.1

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:1460 WP No. 2941 of 2023

¶45

i.e., respondent No.1 and the petitioners shall conclude the cross-examination on the said date.

¶46

Since the issue is of the year 2016, I deem it appropriate to direct the concerned Court to conclude the proceedings within 3 months after completion of the cross-examination, if not earlier.

¶47

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. The petition is allowed.

¶50

ii. The order on I.A.Nos.14 and 15 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pandavapura on 02.01.2023 in G & WC No.1/2016, stands quashed.

¶51

iii. The concerned Court shall permit cross-examination of respondent No.1 as a last straw of opportunity to the petitioners on 24.01.2024.

¶52

iv. It is made clear that no adjournment shall be granted by the concerned Court on any ground, whatsoever.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:1460 WP No. 2941 of 2023

¶55

v. If the petitioners lose this opportunity, an application of the kind will not be entertainable since the concerned Court shall endeavour to conclude the main petition itself within an outer limit of 3 months, if not earlier.

¶56

vi. It is needless to observe that the parties to the lis should co-operate for conclusion of the proceedings as is observed.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

SJK

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT:SNN

Sri.S.Nagaraju v. Smt.Mangala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.S.Nagaraju v. Smt.Mangala

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

M/S. K. R. Beverages Vs M/S. Canara Bank

Smt Parvathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Meenakshamma Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri Niranjan Kumar Dadhichi Vs the Bangalore City Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Topsack Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. G. R. Sheela Vs Sri. K. B. Yuvaraj