Defendants in a specific performance suit challenged rejection of their application to reopen evidence and recall the plaintiff witness for cross-examination about confronted documents. The High Court found no error or justification for recall and dismissed the writ petition.
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 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 56306 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka
ALL ARE R/AT NO.1, AMRUTHA VARSHINI NILAYA, HOSADODDI VILLAGE,
NC: 2024:KHC:30810 WP No. 56306 of 2017
AJANAHALLI DHAKLE, MADABAL HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 511.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. RAJESHWARI M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. GEETHA W/O PATEL MUTHANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O YEREHALLI VILLAGE, KOOTAGAL HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571 511.
…RESPONDENT
(V/O DATED 29.06.2021, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED: 06.12.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO.188/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JDUGE, RAMANAGARA BY ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI (ANNEXURE-F) AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL ORDER
O.S.No.188/2010 and the respondent herein is the plaintiff. The respondent has filed O.S.No.188/2010 for specific performance of an alleged contract. The evidence of plaintiff side is over. Thereafter, the defendants let in their evidence. During the cross examination, the defendant witness was confronted with certain documents and the defendant witness has admitted the same. Thereafter, the defendants filed applications for reopen and recall of PW-1 on the ground that they want to cross examine PW-1 regarding how he got hold of the documents. The trial Court has rejected the same for the following reasons:
"9. This Court views that, merely the defendants have admitted certain documents in evidence, PW1 cannot be recalled to clarify on confronted documents. If the application is allowed there would be never end of the trial and in turn, it would lead to delay in disposal of suit. Further PW1 has already been cross-examined at length by the defendants. Hence, this Court views that, there are no justifiable grounds to recall PW1 to clarify on confronted documents Ex.P6 to Ex.P15."
dismissed .
Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE
MCR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the defendants' application under Section 151 CPC to reopen the case and recall PW-1 for further cross-examination.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. K.S. Saraswathamma
Sri. C. Lenkappa (deceased, by LRs)
Sri. Ramachandra H.L.
Sri. Parthasarathy H.L.
Sri. Hanuman H.L.
Smt. Geetha
M.I.Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
