The High Court set aside the trial court's order rejecting the plaintiffs' application to recall a witness for cross-examination, permitting the petitioners to cross-examine the defendant-witness to ensure a justice-oriented approach.
Impugned order set aside; petitioners permitted to cross-examine DW-1.
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 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 984 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: High Court of Karnataka
ALL ARE R/A NO.21, ‘E' BLOCK EXTENSION, SAHAKARANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 092.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P. PRASAD., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI M THIPPAIAH SON OF SRI. G. MUNIYAPPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A SRI SHILPA GARDEN AND NURSERY, BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDASSANNE POST,
NC: 2024:KHC:10125 WP No. 984 of 2024
DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PARAMESWARAPPA C. AND SRI. ANIL KUMAR, A.S., ADVOCATES)
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18/12/2023, ON IAS IN ORDER 18 RULE 17 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, AND SECTION 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, PENDING IN OS NO. 804/2020, IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU, AT ANNEXURE-G.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.804/2020 on the file of IV Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, is directed against the impugned order dated 18.12.2023, whereby `the application filed by the petitioners – plaintiffs for permission to cross-examine DW-1 was rejected by the trial court.
the respondent – defendant for cancellation of the sale deed and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule property, the sole defendant examined himself as DW-1 and was not cross-examined by the plaintiffs. Subsequently, the application filed by the petitioner to recall DW-1 for cross-examination was rejected by the trial court by passing the impugned order, which is assailed in the present petition.
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 18.12.2023 passed in
O.S.No.804/2020 by the trial court is hereby set aside.
NC: 2024:KHC:10125 WP No. 984 of 2024
(iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Order 18
Rule 17 stands allowed.
(iv) Petitioners are permitted to cross-examine DW-1 on a
date to be fixed by the trial court.
SD/JUDGE
Srl.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should set aside the trial court's rejection of the plaintiffs' application to recall a witness for cross-examination?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
R ANASUYAMMYA
SRI M THIPPAIAH
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
