A defendant's application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to re-examine plaintiff witness after completion of evidence was rejected by the trial court. The High Court upheld that order as justified to prevent filling up lacunae, dismissed the petition and reserved liberty under Order XLIII Rule 1A CPC.
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 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 50161 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. S M MANJUNATH, S/O LATE MUNI ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT SOLURU VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ROOPESHA B.,ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
AND:
Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ARUN KUMAR Y H.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 (ABSENT); R2 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.173/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHIKKABALLAPURA AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.12.9.2019 PASSED ON I.A.NO.10 FILED UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN O.S.NO.173/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHKKBALLAPURA VIDE ANEXURE-E.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
ORAL ORDER
This petition by the 2nd defendant in
O.S.No.173/2015 seeks to lay a challenge to the order dated 12.09.2019 whereby, his application in I.A.No.1 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been negatived by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chikkaballapur.
However, that will not come in the way of disposing of this
court this matter after turning the pages of record.
“…When the case set down for Defendant evidence, 3rd defendant come up with this application which is not sustainable at this stage as the same is filed only to fill up the lacuna in his case, as per the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in ILR 2016 KAR 3341 in case of Gayathri vs. M.Girish. This application which is filed after completion of evidence of PW1 cannot be entertained. Moreover, on what point some of the important questions are to be asked to PW1 as not be stated by the 2nd defendant in this affidavit. Therefore, there is no grounds to accept this application. Hence same is rejected with cost of Rs.250/-...”(sic)
application can be made one of the grounds for challenging the judgment & decree, if and when they go against petitioner’s interest as provided under Order XLIII Rule 1A of CPC, 1908 as amended in 1976 vide Apex Court
decision in VIPAN AGGARWAL vs. RAMAN GANDOTRA ,
(2023) 10 SCC 529.
In the above circumstances, this Petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is, costs having been made easy. Liberty in terms of Order XLIII Rule 1A of CPC, 1908 as observed above is reserved.
Registry to send a copy of the judgment to the 2nd respondent by Speed Post immediately.
Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE
cbc List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9
1 issue framed by the court
Should the trial court's rejection of a defendant's Order XVIII Rule 17 application for re-examination of PW1 be interfered with under Article 227?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gayathri vs. M.GirishApplied
ILR 2016 KAR 3341 · Who else cites this
Vipan Aggarwal vs. Raman GandotraRelied on
(2023) 10 SCC 529 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
S M Manjunath
H G Venkatachalapathy
Nagaveni
KRISHNA S DIXIT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
