High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri C D Sanjay Raj vs Smt Vijayalakshmi on 2 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri C D Sanjay Raj vs Smt Vijayalakshmi on 2 September, 2010
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
   Nasiruddin, Ad_v.)

IN THE HIGH-COURT o:= KARNATAKA ATvsEA:s:c;A£;o<RET _z "  

DATED THIS THE 2"" DAY Of' SEPTE E9i--!3.E4R,','"--2'0;1. L'JE'_'_: '  T

BETORE       
THE HONBLE MR. 3UST1CE A.§Q;.._§/Egxyuoo-Pk§:LA GQWDA
WRIT PETI'fiQN M:'o.;.6'5o_4/T2010 ANS
WRIT PETITION NQ.2564'9/.2_O'1AQ~,(_(§M-CPC)

BETWEEN;    ~ 

Sri C.D.Sang'ay' Raj, as  
S/o. sri"C.H,:3eva':a;aj, 
Aged 'about 33-'years,  ._
Residing at No.4,-.   
Benson Crosas Road"; .. 
Benson Town," _  
Banggaiore ---- 560' 046.

"  '  EEEEE   PETITIONER

1 .  'vfiayafakshmi,
D/o.':.'ate K.H.Ramachandra Reddy,

=  A. ,_W/V0'. Sri R.SrinEvasa Reddy,
" _ Aged about 39 years.

2,. Smt. Pushpavathi,

D/o. Eate K.H.Ramachandra Reddy,
Aged about 37 years.



. Smt. Geetha,

D/o. late K.H.Ramachandra Reddy,
W/o. Sri G.Ramesh Reddy,
Aged about 34 years.

. Sri K.R.Ananthakumar,

S/o. late K.H.Ramachandra Reddy,
Aged about 32 years.

. Smt. Ashwathamma,   
W/o. Kate K.H.Ramachandra Reddy, _1

Aged about 50 years.

No.1 and 5 are residents   
Kaékondanahaliy, Varthur Hobii, 
Carmelaram Post,   _  
Bangaiore --- 560 03.5.} 1

Karnataka7EIectrEci«ty"Board
Ernv.pEo--y"ees' Co-.,op»era-tnie Society Ltd.,
At Ananda Rao C%rcEe.,__  

Race Course Road," 

E3a..ngaEore._- '$60 009.

..Represented*--Vby___i_ts. Honorary Secretary
V" r.§1\i'.G}t'!\£yarayanaswamy.

  Ab/i;»'s.V  ray.aika Enterprises,
A '-N'o.16.é?,{.1.*5, 123' Cross,
-_Mah.a!aI<jsnmi Layout,

Bangaiore - 560 080,
Represented by its Partner

A " *=._Szri B.M.Narasimha Murthy.

"  K.N.Narasimha Guptha,

S/o. K.T.Nagaraj Guptha,

Major, R/at No.2A, Gundappa Street,
No.101, Ctoth Centre,

K.R.Market, Bangalore -- 560 002.



9. M/s. Goiden Gate Properties Limited,
Having its Registered office at
No.820, 8"" Block,
Koramangaia,

Bangaiore ---- 560 095.
Represented by its partner
Sri S.Martin, S/o. Sri Satrigo.

(By Sri i(.Sundaram, Adv. for R1 to  ~'i

  C y  "e'Es1P;oiN'piE»m'*S A C'

These writ petitions aireiiifiied ur:d.er~ Artici'es"'2»25 ands

227 of the Constitution of India praying "to" caii for the
records in o.s.t.No.42/1.995  Conn-ected: with
O.S.No.550/2203 fiiedibv the Vrespondeynts 1 to 3 against
the petitioner and other 'irespionfdentsfpepnding on the fiie of
Additionai City Civil Judge at vBanga'iore..',_'C._ity and set aside
the order passed on 1.'7'"i'Au:gu'st.'=201?0 {which is impugned
as Annexure;'~'--- K-)y.i_i-3nd:ii_n the at)'oye7'ca.se and aiiow I.A.No.4
and 5 whiithv__aire:j.p'ro_ti.uted --..asfAnnexures F and G in

O.S.No.4'2_[_41i995L y 

 Tisese petitionsicoming on in preliminary hearing B'

  grouip ithisday, themtfourt made the foliowing:

ORDER

Rvespoiidents 1 to 3 have instituted a suit against the

respo’ntie-nts 1 to 6 and the petitioner, who incidentaliy is

t«hyejiA”?t” defendant in the suit. The reiief prayed in the suit

H is for partition and separate possession of 1/4″‘ share and

mesne profits. The suit has been contested by the
petitioner and the 9″‘ respondent by filing a joint written

is

J

statement. Respondents have filed o.s.550/zopafkagipjadinst

respondents 4, 5 and 6 and the petitioner

that the sale deeds in respect'””0’f«.th”e

properties are void and not

permanent injunction. The ‘–p.ie’titionera._andp:2.”d”‘~:d’efendant”‘

have filed the written…statem’eiht’–and conte’stedE the suit
claim. Both the suits’V”‘»b:Y–.an order dated
15.4.2010 andf;av–.cortjrhonet:-1a’i~:[i:–asbeen held. For the

plaintiffs, .P’w”.’_1_ “7_N:o:tici:ig that PW.1 was not

cross-:::exaVrhline;d,_’V discharged. The 7″‘ defendant
filed an’xapplication’ro’n’—.20«.”7.2010 to set aside the order

dated. the case for arguments and to

co’nsid5eii* the apepllicavtion filed under 0.18 R.17(a) for

for cross-examination. 7″‘ defendant

filed appiication i.e., under 0.18 R.17 to recall

vi._.;i:’he plaintiffs filed their objections on 27.7.2010 to

the said applications and the Trial Court has

pvdismissed both the applications i.e., It.As.4 and 5. These

writ petitions are directed against the said order.

/”‘

K’

2. The impugned order shows that there.-‘–i._s» no

diligence on the part of the defendants in

conducting the suits. However, in the interes-tifof juVst’ice.,V_”‘_I

deem it appropriate to allow the :pr’ay’erst in andflfi in

order to provide an opportunity to’«t__he_fpetiti’onAer’and

defendants in the suit to cross:–‘e.xamhiV’ne.P\.ll1li_:. suit is”

stated to be posted tor?xi9.2Q1’U.-itSince. thefflea-rnejd counsel
appearing for ‘the defend’antis?7ls a:”‘ii§.iVo.harnmadan and in

view of Ramzangp.erio§dHa;nd:::igdjjfestiyal’being on 8.9.2010,

the suit he”édiqau}nedja”tr§__14._9V§’2o1o on which day, PW.1
shall keep” hersel’fA:.fj;:rrese:n’t«’before the Court and the Trial

Court.sahailfpevrmit’ the defendants to cross–examine PW.1.

. §f”‘ifo’r a,9sny'”reasonfthe crosswexarnination of PW.1 is not

4″oh:’11.14.9.2o1o, the Trial Court is directed to

gfrant ora~e’_;r’nore opportunity to the defendants to conclude

Across’?-efifamination of PW.1. Learned counsel for the

plaintiffs submit that the plaintiffs have no further

___é-vidence to lead other than the one placed through PW.1.

After the cross-examination of PW.1 being complete, the
defendants shall file their side of iffdidavit evidence in the
//

ra

11
6

Trial Court within one week therefrom. The depon:e.nts

thereof shall make themselves available__;’_:fo’rC.’_’ero;=.f__5’*_
examination by the learned counseimfor thepiai.nt.iffs».:asAany_d
when the suit is posted for cross–e>;arrn’inAeti’o.nL- “r_ea_rnr~;d’

counsel appearing for the wgiartjes assure trh’isZ;CQ_urt_:§that_:°.

they would render ready co–o4p’eratEtVon ‘fo’r..Vt_he Trial Court
for compietion of thevtrial _at_anvearly..id’ate and also would
assist the Court. by arguihnig theacaiseVytojenable the Trial

Court to .Vti1e:i..sVuit_j.4at.yftheearliest and at any

event, before the ciolsure for winter vacation-

2010.

the”~§:»;ai:dA’~1ivew’of~th_e__:natter, the writ petitions

stand’–..Aa’ilowe.dT. order stands quashed. The

iindicjzatedlsulprra.

r<é;'/-

Zitpayrties shall”*virenderjfneeessary co—operation to the Trial

_ _Court’for conductinghfof the trial and disposal of the suit, as

sd/-3″

Judge