Sri. H.N. Sathynarayana Reddy Vs Smt Naseem Mariam Abdul Khadir

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-22) IN OS NO.16145/2006 ON IA NO.6, DTD 04.06.2019 VIDE ANNX-G AND THE ORDER PASSED ON IA NO.7 FILED U/O 18 RULE 17 OF CPC DTD 23.03.2020 VIDE ANNX-K & ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This writ petition is filed challenging the orders dated 04.06.2019 and 23.03.2020 passed on I.A.Nos.6 and 7 respectively in O.S.No.16145/2006 by the XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the trial Court’).

¶27

Heard Sri.Nagaraja M.S., learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice to respondent No.1 is served, there is no representation.

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26944 W.P. No.15605/2020

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

The respondent No.1 herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.16145/2006 seeking the relief of declaration and consequential prayer for injunction. In the said suit, the petitioner herein who was defendant No.1 has filed a detailed written statement and matter was posted for trial. The plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and said witness was cross-examined by the petitioner herein and later an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC was filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 to recall the order dated 05.08.2019 and to recall PW1 for further cross-examination, which came to be rejected by the trial Court. The records indicate that the original plaintiff PW1 has died on 24.03.2023, hence, recalling of PW1 would not arise. The records also indicate that the petitioner-defendant No.1 has substantially cross-examined PW1. The records further indicates that the legal heirs of the original plaintiff are brought on record and if they adduce evidence, it is open for the petitioner-defendant No.1 to cross examine them.

¶31

The defendant No.1 has also filed an application in

¶32

I.A.No.6 seeking to dismiss the suit on the ground that the

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:26944 W.P. No.15605/2020

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

respondent No.1-plaintiff has sold the suit schedule property by way of a registered sale dated 20.08.2003 to one Smt.A.Latha and the said application was duly considered and rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the petitioner-defendant No.1 has neither taken the said defence in the written statement nor put forth such a question while cross-examining PW-1. The trial Court has also observed that the defendant No.1 has to prove the aspect of alienation by way of oral and documentary evidence during his evidence and rejected the application. I do not find any error in the impugned orders passed by the trial Court calling for interference in the present petition. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is

¶37

rejected .

¶38

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶39

BSR

¶40

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Sri. H.N. Sathynarayana Reddy v. Smt Naseem Mariam Abdul Khadir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. H.N. Sathynarayana Reddy v. Smt Naseem Mariam Abdul Khadir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C T Rangaswamaiah Vs C S Ramesh

Smt Jayamma Vs Sri P Srirammayya

Sri. Bettaswamygowda Vs Smt Narasamma

Smt. Pushpa Vs Sri. v. Manjunath

Mahesha Vs Smt. Honnamma

M/S Sri Sai Developers Vs Chief Secretary