Karnataka High Court
Smt Sobhamma vs Smt Jayamma on 13 December, 2021
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.21983/2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
SMT. SOBHAMMA,
W/O MANJUNATH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT SHETTAHALLI VILLAGE,
MARSUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
PIN 562 106.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V.SHIVAKUMAR, ADV., AND
SRI. M.V.MANJUNATHA, ADV.,)
AND :
1. SMT JAYAMMA,
D/O LATE C MUNIREDDY,
W/O LATE M G NARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
R/AT GOPASANDRA VILLAGE,
MUTHANALLURU POST,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560 099.
2. SMT RADHAMMA,
W/O RAMACHANDRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT CHINNAUBBUNUR VILLAGE AND POST,
THALI-VIA DENKANIKOTE TALUK,
KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT,
2
TAMIL NADU-635 118.
3. SMT SUSUHEELAMMA,
W/O NARAYAN REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
R/AT KAMBLIPURA VILLAGE,
MAYASANDRA POST,
ATTIBELE HOBLI AND VIA ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562 107.
4. SMT JAYALAKSHMAMMA,
W/O LATE NARAYAN REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT LAKSHMISAGARA VILLAGE,
NERALUR POST,
ANEKAL VIA ANEAL TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562 107.
SMT GOWRAMMA,
W/O LATE C MUNIREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS
(DEAD- LRS ON RECORD)
5. SMT SAROJAMMA,
W/O NARAYAN REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/AT SARAKAPALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
MADHAGONDAPALLI VIA,
DENKANIKOTE TALUK,
KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU-635 114.
6. SMT PARAVATHAMMA,
W/O RAMASWAMY REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT ICCHANGURU VILLAGE,
BAGALUR VIA, HOSUR HEAD POST OFFICE
AND TALUK,
KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU-635 114.
3
SRI VEERA REDDY,
S/O LATE C MUNIREDDY
(DIED LRS ALREADY ON RECORD)
7. SRI MANJUNATH REDDY,
S/O LATE C MUNIREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT SHETTAHALLI VILLAGE,
MARSUR POST ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562 106.
8. SMT PUSHPALATHA,
W/O NARAYAN REDDY,
D/O LATE C MUNIREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
ATTIBELE HOBLI AND VIA
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 107.
9. SRI S V VINOD KUMAR,
S/O VEERA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE AND POST,
INDL., AREA VIA, ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562 107.
10 . SMT VINUTHA,
W/O RAMANATH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE AND POST,
INDL., AREA VIA ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562 107.
11 . VEENA,
D/O MANJUNATH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
4
12 . VIDHYA, D/O MANJUNATH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
13 . VANI, D/O MANJUNATH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R-11 TO R-13 ARE R/AT SHETTAHALLI VILLAGE,
MARSUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562 106.
14 . SMT ANITHA, W/O VINOD KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
15 . SMT SARIYU, D/O VINOD KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER
NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER
S V VINOD KUMAR RESP.NO.9
16 . SMT PRAMEELAMMA,
W/O VEERA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R-14 TO R-16 ARE R/AT
SHETTAHALLI VILLAGE,
MARSUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562 106.
17 . S SHIVASHANKAR,
S/O L SRINIVASA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT YAMARE VILLAGE,
DOMMASANDRA POST,
SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT PIN-562 125.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.C.VENKATESH, ADV., FOR C/R-1)
5
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
/ QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 23.11.2021 VIDE
ANNX-A PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL DISMISSING THE
APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR REOPEN
AND RECALL IN I.A. Nos.17 AND 18 IN O.S. NO.229/2007
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE I.A. Nos.17 AND 18 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner is the ninth defendant in O.S.
No.229/2007, a suit for partition, on the file of the
Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal [for
short 'the civil Court']. The civil Court by the impugned
order has rejected the petitioner's application for
reopening of the case and recalling one of the witnesses
(DW-1).
2. The plaintiff's witnesses have been cross-
examined on behalf of the petitioner, and the witness
examined on behalf of some of the defendants viz., DW1
is not cross-examined. This witness is examined by
some of the defendants to support the plaintiff's case for
partition. The petitioner relies upon a Testamentary
document in support of her defense against the
partition. The petitioner, in support of the applications
for reopening of the case and recalling DW-1, has stated
that she was constrained to engage another learned
counsel to represent her, and only for bona fide reasons,
DW-1 is not cross-examined on her behalf. The civil
Court has rejected the petitioner's applications opining
that once the suit is posted for judgment after closure of
hearing, the applications cannot be entertained.
3. In support of the petition, the learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is hard of
hearing and she has placed necessary material before
the civil Court to substantiate the same. The petitioner,
who is constrained to change the learned counsel, could
not contact the present counsel and instruct for cross-
examination of DW-1 only because of the COVID-19
restrictions, and she is bona fide in filing the
applications. The learned counsel for the contesting
respondents points out that after the witness [DW-1] is
examined, the suit is adjourned on fifteen occasions but
the petitioner has not chosen to ensure that this
witness is cross-examined.
4. The merits of the petitioner's case for
reopening of the case and recalling DW-1 for cross-
examination with leave to lead evidence is examined in
the light of her plea based on a Will executed in her
favour, the reasons assigned for failure to cross-
examine the witness and the settled law that the
applications are not entertained after the suit is set
down for the judgment is essentially as a self-restraint
and not as an iron-cast rule to prevail under all
circumstances. This Court is of the considered view
that the petitioner must have the liberty to cross-
examine DW-1 and also lead further evidence but in a
certain time-frame. Therefore, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed and the civil
Court's impugned order dated 23.11.2021 is
invalidated.
(ii) The petitioner is permitted to cross-
examine DW-1 on the next date of hearing
viz., 16.12.2021 without seeking adjournment
and also complete her evidence within a
period of six weeks from the date she is called
upon by the civil Court to lead evidence.
SD/-
JUDGE
RK/-
Ct: SN
