High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Narayanaswamy S/O Lt Giddaiah vs G Ravindra S/O G Gopinath Acharya on 18 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri Narayanaswamy S/O Lt Giddaiah vs G Ravindra S/O G Gopinath Acharya on 18 January, 2010
Author: Anand Byrareddy
' V'  .,Naga$'ar:dV:'a 'Post,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA  4%

DATED THIS THE 18"' DAVOF.J"AN{fT§RT?j25Eff»  Vk

BEFoRE:._  ' J
THE HONBLE MR. JUS1"i.CEANM*lD :3Y;R}x1:§LEDi)Y
WRIT PETITION No.962;963 ;:5jF-- .201 0 {GM;CPC>

WRET PETITION.N(3.96(}f'9§3l QF" 2.6:! O7(GM--CPC)

ZN WRIT PETTTIQVN'-'.Nc;L€§fi2--«9633'G}? 2_9:dV(GM--CPC)

3.my'jV    ' 
Son ofLateGidda'énh';".A' .--  '
Aged about 35 y'::a1"s',;-- _ 
Res'idi1"igTAat Nalia-}«;21§iirerA1Vr;1hai1i,

.Ye;shmanrhp~u:§a--Hahn,

 -.Ba1f_;.gai<)North' T21 iuk,

Ba.nga'1o1~e-5r:5I,)073. ...PET1T;0NEii

' _ 'T{By'Shri'V.ChaTh{1répp21 and Associates, Advocates)

G .§Ravindra,

V  ~ "Son 0fG.G0pinath Acharya,
" »  Aged ab0u158 years.

Residing at N037/D, 11/2.
South End Road,

5



EN.)

2(a)

2('b')

2(0)

Ix)

Baszwanagudi,
B;1ngaI0re--560 004.

Smt.Sh0bha Keshav,
Wife of Keshav Bhandary,
Since deceased by her Legal heirs,

Shri.Kesh21v Bhandari,

Son of Late. Venkanna Bhandafi  ' 

Aged about 80 y<~3ars,

Smt.Smitha.K,  

Daughter of Kesha;v...Bhan.da"ri=,. _ -- 

Aged about 42 yeilrsj _ 

Smt.SwethasRa0,   .  V

Dgau K_e :e; ha v._B'h,,'gm(J21ri,
Ag-edaébout 40"years_.,"'-..  ' 

Al}. are_1fesi(i'iLfig at N
Ama"1T_§Jy0£hi Ap:71a'{mcnts,v

A' 'V V' "vKan'ak3dp2uL:fa Main Rd:id';"
  L  
' J_a'yaTna 69"' B fa;:_E'avii'owitngt E.A..N0.7 and 8 filed

by the petitioner for reopening eas<:.._at:rf1..'.to_i.eross examine the.
court conimissioneif in O;'S'.'i'~$d.,5'f(}§it/_2{}{)3 ..vi'de Annexure--D and

etc.,  --------   I'  _
IN mt 9ETiT'it'iNf.iNt§§950296 1' OF 2010(GM--C?ct

BETWEEiN:..__di V

 2 y_ 1 .   N:1u;'ayz3n'app:.1., v

_  Sort of Late Chikka Hanumarithaiah,
 i'  Aged about. 60 years,
 .R'evs'id.ing.}n"'Nallakadirenahalii,
_  Yeshwiinthpura Hobli,
 Bztvngavlore North Taltik.
Bat?t':gaiote-56() 073. ...PETiTEONER

  H"'(Bye_S:t;1'i.V.Chandrappa and Associates, Advocates)

6



AND:

1. G.Ravind1-a,

Son of G.G0pinath Acharya.
Aged about 58 years,
Residing at N037/D. E 1/2,
South End Road,
BasavanagL1di,
Bangalom--560 004.

§x)

Smt.Sh0bha Keshgv, VA _ 
Wife 0fKeshav Bh;i'r1.dary,  _  _
Since deceased by hér.j.Legai'¥"heir_$§'--.  

2(a) sh;-1. Kesha§:(:vl3han§,i ari;   

Son _()fjAi;£iI--¢ .§{é«nkzam_fii1.,._3ha;1dari.
Aggeci 'about 8('}«.ye'a1jS;--..»» " 

2(1)) _SzT1t.V'SL"1".-1Aith:1V.VlV(V.  V 
 Da11gl2te1"'ef:Keshgw Bhandari,
_  A_ged~ab(mt éi2""yE:ars,

  '   R210,

.. VA  "Ail aré.1*€§iding at §\%0.3()4~A,
..jj~»Amar_Jy<)thi Apemments.

  Yadiyur,
, -Jayanagar éfi' Block,
 Banga]0re--56()082.

A ' -.,'D'a'ugh.te1§;t')f' Keshav Bhzmdari,
 Agcri_ :;1j'33()uI 40 years.

Kanakapura Main Road,

6

 



Smt.I-Iema Sridhar,

Wife of Dr.C.B.Sridhar.

Aged about 63 years.    _
Residing at N0.2l2, 39"' A Cross.  j; 
9"' Main, 5* Block,   '

J ayanagar.

B21ngzii()re~56(') 041 .

(J)

4. Smt.Sindhu Si'iniv£;:S.,_

Wife of Srinivas,  Q' _ --_  g  AA 

Aged about 47 years,  V    _ 

Residing at*No.2I3';";39«'h:"A ems, ; .e 

9"'      

Jayziiieigtir,  '     .
BangialV()r-e€§v60()~fi'4.»lI''-ff- ;  RESPONDENTS

_ 'r.'le'ai1d 7"d3_ted: 2.1.2010 by allowing i.A.N0.6 and 7 fiied

'' V' "-by the }Z31_€T.E[l>'{'Izl'1€I' ftiriifetipening the case and to cross examine the
 »eQ't2-rt et,)rIi1iri.i.ss'i:)_ner in O.S.N0.5624/2003 vide Annexured) and
V'i..et'ci.e,   "  '~

 in 'B' gretxp this day, the Court made the foliowingt ~»

  Petitions are coming on for preiiminary hearing

ORDER

Heard the Counsei for the petitioners.

@

6

2. These petitions are filed on rejection of the applications

of the petitioners seeking to recall the order of Ih€_4vTlfi&ii’C0UiT

passed in two pending suits and to permit the pe__tit.ioner5[to–.siei*o_sis–+

examine the Court Commissioner, \)xho.__is app(‘)iVintefci to s,g{ive’t-._his’i. ‘

findings on a comparison of the tiitimhirnpresision wi:_ichii’was

disputed. The Commissionerihavingvh been for Cross’.

examination on 7.1 1.2(‘}i)Q_, the”verft’Connmissionenhaving filed
two reports, it is the cciintentioniv ‘petitioner that the

co1’nm.i_ssioi1er”?;2«>’:1sV_Vofferedgfor (.ross-examination in one of the

suits tindnot-tiie”s:uitin. the petitioner had sought to cross-

6-)(£iV.I.’i§jiil’iV1€3t*,iliIfi,litlftleiy, o.s.i\to.5o23/2tio3.

.A it that the Commissioner being present on the date

set’ -dpowin’ to-If purpose, the petitioner had not chosen to cross-

exan1ine.athe Commissioner on the ground that the counsei

ttppearing for the plaintiff was engaged in some other court.

iziowever, the trial court having recorded that the cross-

6

7
examination of the Court Commissioner as nil. had posted the

matter for further proceedings.

4. The Counsel not having: chosen to e1′<)ss–ex_amii1e"-the C?o{ui~"t

Com.m.issioner though he was on p,resen_t several*oveeasio'ns,"the. i

matter having been adjourned from"tirn::ilt'o tinzg,' .u,lti.m'a;t'e.1y"the
Comm.issionei' having been disc-harged and.thee'ross:geiX'an'1ination
being taken as nil — is tooibeichalleiiiiged byithe 'petitioner.

it }mi«m t«hVe"-o_z'd.er sheet that though the petitioner
had failedtoiei't)ss–e:~iarnii'a–ethe Court Commissioner, admittedly

on date on"'w__h.Eeh present in Court on the ground he

to he–,eross~exainining only in the connected suit. But

holw-ever; were taken by the Counsel for the plaintiff to

have t.he,Corninissioner recalled in the suit in which he was to be

eroS;'s:examineci and the plaintiff Chose to await three dates of

i hearing before any attempt was rnade to have the Commissioner

recalled. Such c:ondu<:I on the part of the plaintiff does not

warrant interference by this gun; in exercise of its writ

8
jurisdiction and the order of the Court being disc:’eti()nary, there

is no warmni for Entatrference. The petitions are 1’€j€C[€d.

RV