Karnataka High Court
Smt Ranjitha vs Sri R Ravikumar on 6 July, 2022
Bench: Sachin Shankar Magadum
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.13181 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT RANJITHA
D/O LATE K NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
RESIDING AT 4TH SHOP LANE
TATA SILK FARM
BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU-560 004.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHREENIVASA K L, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI R RAVIKUMAR
S/O K M RAMAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
NO.18, 7TH CROSS, 30TH MAIN
BSK 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU-560085.
2. SMT GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE K NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
3. SRI N RAGHAVENDRA
W/O LATE K NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
SL. NO.2 & 3 ARE RESIDING
AT 4TH SHOP LANE
TATA SILK FARM
2
BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU-560004.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M S NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.6.6.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.586/2015
ON THE FILE OF XL ADDL CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-41)
BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-H VIDE ORDER DTD.06.06.2022
AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by defendant
No.3 feeling aggrieved by the common order dated
06.06.2022 passed in O.S.No.586/2015 by the court
of XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru, on I.A.Nos.1/2022 and 2/2022 wherein the
said applications filed by the petitioner to recall PW-1
and PW-2 for further cross-examination are rejected.
The said order is under challenge.
2. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit in
O.S.No.586/2015 for specific performance. The said
suit was decreed, which was challenged by the
petitioner herein and other defendants before this
court in R.F.A.No.1539/2019. A Division Bench of this
court vide order dated 04.11.2019 was pleased to set
aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and
the matter stood remitted to the trial court with a
direction to dispose of the suit within six months from
03.12.2019. After remand, the respondent/plaintiff
examined PW-3. The present petitioner along with
defendant Nos.1 and 2 were fully cross-examined on
08.03.2021. Now the present petitioner, who is
arrayed as defendant No.3, filed applications in
I.A.Nos.3 and 4/2021 to recall the earlier order and
permit the petitioner to further cross-examine PWs-1
and 3. The said applications were filed on the premise
that the petitioner has engaged a separate Advocate
and therefore, he intends to further cross-examine
PWs-1 and 3. The learned Judge, though reluctant,
however, having regard to the rights of the parties
allowed the applications filed in I.A.Nos.3/2021 and
4/2021, thereby permitting the present petitioner to
cross-examine PWs-1 and 3 subject to payment of
cost of Rs.4,000/-. While allowing the applications, it
was made clear to the petitioner that no unnecessary
adjournments will be granted to the petitioner.
Inspite of the said direction, the present petitioner
sought adjournments on two occasions by stating that
the Senior Counsel, who was supposed to cross-
examine the witnesses, is not keeping well.
Therefore, the Court was compelled to take as no
cross-examination. The present applications are filed
in I.A.Nos.1 and 2/2022. The present petitioner has
again filed applications to recall PWs-1 and 3 and
permit the petitioner to cross-examine them. The said
applications are rejected, which is under challenge in
this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. On a meticulous examination of material on
record, this court would find that there is absolute
laxness on the part of the petitioner in not diligently
contesting the suit. The present case on hand would
clearly demonstrate that the present petitioner and
other defendants suffered a decree against which an
appeal was filed before the Division Bench of this
Court in R.F.A.No.1539/2019. At the instance of the
defendants, the judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.586/2015 was set aside and the matter was
remanded back for fresh consideration with a direction
to decide the case within six months from 03.12.2019.
5. The Division Bench of this court had issued a
direction way back in 2019 i.e., on 04.11.2019 and
now we are in 2022. If all these significant details are
taken into consideration, I am of the view that the
conduct of the present petitioner is grossly unfair. He
has made all efforts to protract the hearing. Though
this Court cannot find fault with the learned Trial
Judge in rejecting the applications, however, having
regard to the fact that valuable rights of the parties
are involved in this case, this court deems it fit to
grant one more opportunity to the petitioner,
however, by putting the petitioner to some stringent
terms by imposing exemplary cost. It is a fit case
where the petitioner has to be saddled with cost of
Rs.25,000/- payable to the first respondent/plaintiff.
It is only on payment of Rs.25,000/-, the petitioner
will be permitted to cross-examine PWs-1 and 3.
Accordingly, I pass the following order:
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 06.06.2022 passed in O.S.No.586/2015 by the
court of XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru, on I.A.Nos.1/2022 and 2/2022 is set aside.
I.A.Nos.1/2022 and 2/2022 are allowed. The
petitioner is permitted to cross-examine PW-1 and
PW-3 subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- on
the next date of hearing. The respondent/plaintiff
shall keep both the witnesses present on the next
date of hearing. If the witnesses are offered for
cross-examination, the petitioner shall conclude his
cross-examination within a period of one week.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KNM/-
