IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15*" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA ~
WRIT PETITION NO.37439/20100.. 379272]20~110,,é;"'V
WRIT PETITION NO.40677/2010,-(GMl'e:§5C)«
BETWEEN:
ASHOK S DHARIWAL
S/O P SUGAN CNAND
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS _ ._ 5
R/AT NO 8/32, SINDOOR EULL~TEMP'I._E,i-. L
ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 004. '- _ I _
= ' PETITIONER
(BY SR1 P D SURAN,A,"A,Dfv.) ,;
1 SMT NEELAMVMA' IN',/j,O._C~I{N.AI.DU
AGED ABOUT v65"YE/'1..RS~,
2 C +<: 'NAIDU S/D..C'.'GOvINDASvvAM\{ NAIDU
" v A._GE.D ,AVBO.__L1T 69"vE.A.RS
" BOTH 'ARE R./{AT NO 35,
' ,.,Y'E«LLAE?PA'STRE_ET,
C§IHIKi
ANNEXURE E IN THE ORDER SHEET IN MIS. CASE NO. 300/2005 ON
THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL }UDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.
THESE PETITIONS COMZNG ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEVA'F'»,IN-G
IN '0' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOL£_OV\{I.[\§G:,{"*ff. V.
ORDER
O.S.No.3810/2005 filed by the ;’eIsIpond_e”nts.;iajdainst'”tVheE'”1
petitioner for the reiief of Ejectment”.arid_z reco’y*_eAr’y’v
damages for use and enjoyment 0f._§i=gmisVes.. date of
termination of tenancy wastfecreed O2″8..O2.2AC3O’4.””VT0 set»
aside the said decree and to .resAtio,.i:Ie:”the”si;g»i.tI’ for disposai in
accordance with *-theE!’petiitiioneriyi’fiias ijiied Misc.Petition
No.300/2005′”‘against res;i’ondeLn’t’sVIVin the City Civil Court,
Bangalore’ ‘The have fifed statement of
objectionson II24.08’.ZQQSI~.fT;;!’T€:”I;3€titiOfl having been posted for
:.(‘-‘.’Ti’€.§L_1|’ry.,’:_:}”i;)xEj’IZIIIi(),t[‘IeE'”I30? —- –himself examined as PW–1. The
pe’tition”‘iVhavv»i’ri{j”i~Ibeen adjourned for cross-e><amination,
T"s.___n0ticing»the abs'jen'ce of PW–1 and not tendering himself for
_'"~__cros_s–exarninati0n, evidence of PW–1 was struck off on
Petitioner filed LA No.3 on 18.06.2008 for
T"=,_re'caEAJing of the said order. Objections to If No.3 was filed on
-an
M/»”
wt’
07.07.2008. LA No.3 was dismissed for default. LA No.4 was
fiied, which was ailowed subject to the payment of cost on
16.01.2009. Thus, LA No.3 was restored. Noticing__ the
variance in the facts stated in LA No.3, vis–a–vis
sheet dated 11.02.2008, LA No.3 was aisii%..isseai..gal–
27.05.2009.
3. LA No.5 was filed by the peutioner
i.e., to recali PW–1 for the purpo«s:e’i.of te’ndV_irig.0-=hinIi4seiVf for
cross–examination. Object’i0.n_s t_oV”i.A-It§\io’.5._wasivfiled by the
respondents on 13.08.2009. N.otic’;’i105Vth..e_f0tt;i.er’_’_.passed on LA
No.3, which .:in«c’_haiie.noVed, I.A No.5 was heid as
not maintain’abi’e%and_.ti2..e.0sarne«was rejected on 15.10.2009.
Challenging L tne said “0-orders, W.P.Nos.37439/2010 81
1-V37927/2*0:1O.’v\ie”i’e filed ti’n”29.11.2010.
“O5n”_~;011′.~f06”.2010, petitioner filed LA No.6 to permit
Pia/-1 to””tei’i:derhimself for cross–examination. Noticing the
wpassveid on I.A Nos.3 8: 5, I.A No.6 was rejected on
0.’_1Q*.0″E..V20’1:0. An appiication seeking amendment of the writ
0 peti’tion was fiied ie, to chailenge the order passed on LA
it.»
o”
No.6 dated 01.06.2010. The said application was allowed and
the writ petition was amended. Additional court fee l’ia”ving
been paid, W.P.l\£o.40677/2010 has been assigned.f*—.’_j;.._,__i”‘.l’
5. Sri P.D.Surana, learned connsel:’a’p=peari’ngfitheu
petitioner submits that, the possession of.the’=.p’r’emis’§,$..,.,,ha:’i_*0
been delivered by the petitioner~tVo’«-the res.pondentsLeveij orioir
to the institution of O.S.E\io.3810/2__1_0’0-fie-ngd thexelpwasviho need
for the respondents to __for recovery of
Possession/Passing of decree-for Ej-e'<::.tme'nt."'*.[Learned counsel
submits that, asoin oate. oi filing of"the"'s'uit, petitioner was
not in possessimjfvrygfliiéfiyaiaji'~.Ci1itra"_"'M'aiVndira, belonging to the
respondents: 0' Wilthouta':_t'th'ere'-be.i.-ng any need for obtaining a
decree fo_r_E3'ectme'ntVandi'-thlere being no arrears, the said suit
,_fw'asA filed: it-_.ear._ned co'u=n-sel submits that, the grievance of the
pVet,i'tii'ori_er.. regard to the money decree passed in
* According to the learned counsel, the said
.de.r_:_ree is aniexparte decree, since the suit summons were not
.eve'n.Vtei~i_.dered to the petitioner and by scheming acts, a
V"-_.__'e'v'ndor;sement of refusal has been got drawn through the
i5;
/ff’
Process Server and the decree passed is an exparte decree.
Learned counsei submits that, in the circumstan_ces:W_the
Misc.Petition was filed to set–aside the exparte .
restore the suit for decision in accordance_ witi–i”I’a’w-Q’.Learned_ ii”
counsel submits that, PW–1 appeared iri’_”the atria’?.:”co:urt”—onf
several hearing dates prior to 1’i,__02,2G()8v- but r L’
examined by the respondents. Learned ‘t:ounsei«su,bn1its that,
the trial court without Vho:tic,in–g iitijeé”5prpceedings of the
Misc.Petition prior to.’–1v1.02,2G08f’ h’as,.”meci1a:ni’cai|y passed the
impugned orders… ~ 1
6. :’i’LeVarn.ed_vco};nseilaippeairinigifor the respondents on
the other hand,. byijrwiitiniigi..rny.:’attention to the order passed
on LA No.3 anid’~th’e.{g.coi*d’hot the writ petition wouid submit
,ft’h’at, ;_–rernainedV’a’b’sent and did not tender himseif for
cross4e>_i’!_\;i’o.3v_beii:r}_gi::untenable was rightly rejected. Learned
..i,i,i’_;_.r;ou_nsei su’~bVn*i.its that, in view of rejection of I.A No.3 and its
no”n§chaii’enge for a iong period of time, the orders passed on
H & 6 is justified. Learned counsei submits that, in the
E
facts and circumstances of the case, no interference in the
matter is calied for.
7. Keeping in view the rival contentionfsf’I.f_’V—h:av:e__’*_
perused the writ petition papers.
8. The point for consideratioriwis: if
Whether in the factsfV__an.d
the case, the trial courtm/asp’justrl€ie:d’ in not
recalling PW–1. cro«ss:_exa4rnir:-aption?V”
9. Indisputably, pe.titti’one.r’__Vhas”‘gio’t”:iijaiVrrViseif examined
as PW-1 on of PW–1 was
deferred gin’i’ti.’e.:’::’_eqéd:éést “of.p:’responde’nts. The order sheet
discioses .P\l\i–.1VV ‘hfas’ia.p’peaii.ed on several hearing dates.
The petition has beeri._ad,jo’u«rned on several occasions upon
_~’tEte_reqfo:est._.of.__respAond—-e-nts. I.A No.3 was dismissed initialiy
for’defauit~._;ai:i’Ci~iistibsequentiy on 27.05.2009 by noticing
__variar.Ace’of tAh’e{f_a.eEts stated in LA No.3 with that of the order
‘ii.._.__si*.~.e_pet. Theu’o._rder passed on LA No.3 is not a considered and
order. In View of the filing of application seeking
recaiiing of PW-1 to tender himself for cross-examination, the
KM’
trial court ought to have imposed reasonable cost and allowed
LA No.3. The rejection of I./1\s No.5 & 6 is only on accoulhtsiof
order passed on LA No.3 having not been challenged–.and__i’not’
otherwise.
10. Considering the facts and ci:rcui.n’sta’:n’ces4″oftgtihses
case, the order passed on LA’ i\_l0.3A”d_at’ed is
irrational. As already noticed, the”l’i’o._rRder dated:_RIZ7:.OSg2OO9 is
neither a considered nor a’ ‘re’asor.i’ed:.oirderg’Respondents have
failed to establish any malafides :fEhQ\,,,pa’lrt:ii..o’f PW–1 in not
tendering hirnselff’ éfldifo-.cros–s–e}<'arnina:ti'on;-W:The order sheet
discloses tihabtl," 'diaspitexftriejll'presence'"'oi' PW~«1 in the court on
several heagrihg V request made by the
respondents, the petition Awasadjourned for cross~examination
r_v'of'«-PW-3:' I;n.Ath.e circur'i–1~srt'ances, there being no malafides on
th'e_'..:p'etitiorier, LA No.3 ought to have been
' V'2,v.allowedii''The_ordiers::passed otherwise is irrational. The rejection
Nos; 6 being consequential to the order passed on
l_,A:l:l€o.:3;~«_.the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. The
V' .r:el'lefl;prayed in LA No.3 can be grant
(D
d by subjecting the