Smt. M. Vinutha vs Shri B. Ramakrishna Reddy
2021 Latest Caselaw 5104 Kant

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

         WRIT PETITION NO.21664/2021(GM-CPC)

BETWEEN :

SMT. M.VINUTHA,
WIFE OF SHRI K.GANESH,
AGED 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.329,
3RD CROSS, KODIHALLI,
HAL AIRPORT ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 008.
REP. BY G.P.A. HOLDER BY
SRI.K.GANESH.
                                         ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.ARUN B.M., ADVOCATE)
AND :

SHRI. B.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY,
SON OF LATE BALAPPA REDDY,
AGED 75 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1,
2ND CROSS, KODIHALLI,
HAL AIRPORT ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 008.
                                    ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.SRINIVASAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2021 PASSED IN O.S.
                             2



No.6910/2018 BY THE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU(CCH-25), INSOFAR AS IT
CLOSES PETITIONER/DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE, VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE PETITIONER/DEFENDANT
TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE, ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-


                       ORDER

The defendant, whose application for permission

to lead evidence after the case is listed for arguments is

rejected, has preferred this petition. The petitioner and

the respondent are parties to the proceedings in O.S.

No.6910/2018 on the file of the Additional City Civil

and Sessions Judge (CCH-25), Bengaluru [for short 'the

civil Court'].

2. It is seen from the impugned order dated

20.11.2021 that the petitioner's application to lead

evidence is allowed on cost of Rs.500/-, but on the

same day, the petitioner's side is taken as closed and

the matter listed for arguments on the ground that the

petitioner's witness was not present in the Court to go

on with the evidence. The petitioner's subsequent

application, despite the fact that the respondent has not

contested the application, is rejected.

3. The suit in O.S. No.6910/2018 is for

declaration and possession. The petitioner is yet to

commence his evidence. Though there is some

controversy on whether the petitioner has been diligent,

and that the petitioner's diligence or otherwise must be

tested by the respondent's conduct in seeking multiple

adjournments over two years to complete evidence, this

Court is of the view that the controversy in this regard

cannot prevail. The petitioner must have an

opportunity to lead evidence to avoid protraction of the

proceedings even after the judgment.

Therefore, the petition is favoured and the

impugned order dated 20.11.2021 in O.S.

No.6910/2018 on the file of the Additional City Civil

and Sessions Judge (CCH-25), Bengaluru is quashed

allowing the petitioner's application for leave to lead

evidence. The petitioner shall keep the witness present

on the next date of hearing viz., on 06.12.2021 and

complete the examination-in-chief on the same day.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RK/-

Ct: SN