High Court allowed writ petition filed against orders rejecting a cross-examination application. Court set aside impugned orders, permitted final opportunity for cross-examination, and imposed Rs.10,000 cost on petitioner.
Impugned orders set aside; petitioner permitted to cross-examinePW1 once; cost of Rs.10,000 imposed.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:19384 WP No. 3236 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 3236 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SRINIVAS S/O LATE VARADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 23, 1ST 'B' CROSS, GANGANAGARA, NEAR RATHAN APARTMENTS, MUTHAPPA BLOCK, R.T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 032. (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY K P., ADVOCATE)
…PETITIONER
AND:
Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2024:KHC:19384 WP No. 3236 of 2023
CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI, R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU -560 032.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SADANAND G SHASTRI., ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DATED 05.06.2024, NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH., R2 & R4 IS SERVED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN O.S.NO. 3798/2011, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE COURT OF THE XXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH NO.35). AND ETC.
NC: 2024:KHC:19384 WP No. 3236 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC in O.S.No.3798/2011 by XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru by defendant No.2 therein has filed this writ petition. The petitioner has filed the application to cross-examine PW1 after the evidence of the
parties were closed. The trial Court has rejected the said applications on the ground that the suit is of the year 2011 and defendant No.2 has not cooperated for quick disposal of the case and has not cross-examined PW1 inspite of giving sufficient opportunity. Perusal of the order sheet reveals that, inspite of granting sufficient opportunity to defendant No.2, he has tried his best to protract the proceedings and I do not find any error in the order passed by the trial Court. However, in the interest of
justice, as a last opportunity, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if one final opportunity is given to the petitioner to cross-examine PW1 by imposing a cost of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, the following:
ORDER
ii. The impugned order dated 27.01.2023 passed on I.A. filed under Section 151 of the CPC and I.A. filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC in O.S.No.3798/2011 on the file of XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is hereby set aside.
iii. The petitioner herein is permitted to cross-examine PW1.
iv. The Trial Court shall not grant morethan one opportunity to the petitioner/defendant No.2 to cross-
examine PW1 and if the petitioner fails to cross-examine PW1 on the next date of hearing or the date of which PW1 is available for cross-examination, no further opportunity will be granted to the petitioner.
v. The petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- to PW1 on the next date of hearing and the petitioner shall
cooperate for quick disposal of the case.
Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether one final opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine PW1 considering the interest of justice despite the delay.
Whether impugned orders rejecting the application for cross-examination of PW1 must be set aside with a specific direction to limit future opportunities.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
(none cited in this judgment)Referred
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. Srinivas
Smt. V. Vijayalakshmi
M.I. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
