Sri Santhosha @ M. Sathyanarayana Vs Smt. Gunamba @ Harsha K D

SMT.M.JYOTI @ YAMUNA W/O B.P.CHANDRASHEKAR AGED 42 YEARS R/AT KAMAL PAINT HOUSE SHANKARACHARYA ROAD NEAR SIDDESHWARA DEVASTHANA VIDYA NAGAR HASSAN-573 202

¶22

… RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT.SRUTHI CHAGANTI., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SHEKAR BAADIGER., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 09.07.25 PASSED BY II ADDL.SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN IN O.S.NO.250/2022 ON I.A. NOS.22 AND 23 VIDE ANNX-F.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel

¶29

for respondents.

¶30

The present petition is filed by petitioner/defendant

¶31

No.1 to set aside the order dated 9.7.2025 passed by the

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44482 WP No. 27997 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

learned 2^nd Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hassan, in O.S. No.250/2022 on I.A. Nos.22 and 23.

¶35

The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit against the petitioner/defendant No.1 and others for the relief of partition and separate possession. The defendant no.1 appeared and filed the written statement on 2.2.2023. After the issues were framed, the Court proceeded to examine PW.1 and thereafter defendant No.1 cross-examined PW.1 in part and the matter was adjourned on several occasions for further crossexamination and vide order dated 18.2.2025, the trial Court noted cross-examination as 'nil'. Thereafter, on 4.3.2025 petitioner/defendant no.1 filed I.A. Nos.20 and 21 for recalling PW.1 for further cross-examination and re-opening the case. The said applications were allowed and the defendant No.1 was directed to conduct further cross-examination on 25.3.2025. When the matter came up before the trial Court on 25.3.2025, petitioner/defendant no.1 again sought time for further crossexamination and the said prayer was rejected. Thereafter, petitioner filed I.A. Nos.22 and 23 to recall PW.1 and to re-open the case for further cross-examination of PW.1. By the impugned order dated 9.7.2025, the trial Court dismissed both

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44482 WP No. 27997 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

the applications by imposing costs of Rs.1,000/- on each of the applications. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner/defendant No.1 is before this Court in the present petition.

¶39

It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the trial Court is totally unjustified in dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner. The trial Court has not assigned proper reasons for dismissing the applications. Learned counsel submits that lapse on the part of the petitioner is not deliberate and denial of cross-examination of PW.1 amounts to denial of right to substantiate case of the petitioner. Therefore, he seeks one more opportunity to crossexamine PW.1 and submits that prescribed time limit may be fixed by this Court for cross-examination of PW.1.

¶40

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs vehemently contends that the present applications - I.A. Nos.22 and 23 filed by petitioner/defendant No.1 are perverse and they are filed with an intention to drag on and protract the proceedings. Learned counsel submits that vide order dated 18.2.2025, the trial Court noted the cross-examination as 'nil' and thereafter, defendant No.1 filed I.A. Nos.20 and 21 to

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44482 WP No. 27997 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

recall and re-open the case for further cross-examination of PW.1 and the plaintiff has voluntarily agreed for further crossexamination of PW.1 and accordingly, the said applications were allowed. The present applications - I.A. Nos.22 and 23 are verbatim same as that of I.A. No.20 and 21. Therefore, learned counsel submits that despite providing sufficient opportunity to petitioner/defendant No.1 to cross-examine PW.1, he is protracting the proceedings with an intention to cause delay in disposal of the case. It is further contended that when the matter is in the fag end of the trial, the present applications are filed eventhough defendant No.1 has partly cross-examined PW.1. Therefore, he contends that I.A. Nos.22 and 23 are frivolous applications and no valid reasons are forthcoming to allow the said applications. Therefore, learned counsel seeks to dismiss the said applications.

¶44

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties.

¶45

It is not in dispute that the suit is filed for the relief of partition and separate possession. The defendant No.1 has contested and filed his written statement. Issues are framed

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44482 WP No. 27997 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

and defendant No.1 has partly cross-examined PW.1. Now,

¶49

the matter is posted for evidence of defendants. At this stage, petitioner/defendant No.1 filed two applications, one to recall PW.1 and another to re-open the case for crossexamination of PW.1. No doubt, it appears that defendant no.1 is prolonging and protracting the matter for whatsoever reason. However, having heard learned counsels for parties and having regard to the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition, this Court deems it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the petitioner/defendant No.1 to cross-examine PW.1, by imposing cost.

¶50

The suit is of the year 2022. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to fix the time frame for completion of cross-examination of PW.1.

¶51

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶52

O R D E R

¶53

i) The petition is allowed .

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:44482 WP No. 27997 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

ii) The impugned order dated 9^th July 2025 on I.A. Nos.22 and 23 passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hassan, is hereby set aside.

¶57

iii) Consequently, I.A. Nos.22 and 23 in O.S. No.250/2022 are allowed.

¶58

iv) PW.1 is recalled for the purpose of crossexamination by defendant No.1. The petitioner/defendant No.1 is permitted to crossexamine PW.1 within two weeks from the next hearing date i.e, 9.11.2025. Thereafter, the plaintiff is at liberty to cross-examine petitioner/defendant No.1. Both parties shall cooperate for adducing evidence without taking unnecessary adjournments.

¶59