V 1. 4S'ri.J.osc1V)1i,.. V' V'
wpl2344.06
IR THE HIGH COURT OF KARHATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH A1' DHARWAD
mm» 'mm 11-11: am ms' or smrrnunm, _
BEFORE
THE Homnm mz..ms1'IcE BY} 1Ej:J?'BY _'_A.V
vmrr pmmon 30.12344! ,.3[..Lfi:;$is Ro&x-igae
, Agéni abémt 61 years,
" {")_cc.; B;1Si;1cas,
R/'cs Efigshpauidc Nagar,
. 'Er-Iuh1i,'~ f'j_
.. , i n T sfilwimip,
~ ' «S/o Assis Rodrigues,
" about 56 years,
()ec:Businesa,
wpl2344.06
Rest -» do'
3. Smt.Maga:llina,
W/o Martin Rodngucs,
Aged about 66 years,
Occ:Houschold work,
Resident of Court Road
Supreme Wine Shop,
Sinai, Distvttara Kannada.
4. Smt.Ph1'1omina,
W/o Peter Gcnsalves,
Aged about 53 years,
0cc:Hous-ehold work,
R/o Near R.C.Church,
Binaga, Post «.
Kaxwar, Dist:Uttma' a., . ,' "
5. Sri.Abdul Khadar, 2
S/o Vailad Reshm_i,>. *--__ .
Major, _
R/o Nagaamctflkq-ppa,'_ .
Kcs11wa}irur,,.'f'E11i:'aIi=,.. , " ;
Dist:Dhmw:§x!.1'.;_:»» H ~
6. Smt."Sh.ams.':1_iya,f V»
Wife oi7.Shamshuddi1_1'i2ssii1ni,
Aged about 35 yearn,
Otzcaflousehold 'Work;
Rfio Keshwagiim,
_mst:::>:;a:~.gaa. msrosnmrre
my Adv £0! 12.1 and 2,
R3-to 6 .j.a;
is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
..«.Coz1stitI1tii:.t;;bfIz1dia praying to quash the under (it. 19.01.2006
._"Ap*:a~,s;scc1%..pn IA No.8 in O.S.No.234/97 on the fiic of Principal
A ~.}};dge, (Sr.Dn.) Huhli as per Anncxune~D and etc.,
6
wpI2344.06
3
This petition coming on for pzelizninaly hearing in 'B'
group, this day, the Court made the follovying:
ORDER.
1.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner.
2. The facts of the case are as follows:
It is stated that the mother of reéfidndeets
filed the Civil Suit in O.S.No.234/ 19¢; “inc
Civil Judge, Senior Division, seeing’. g’ “or a”
mandatory injunction, tezfiemolish been
constructed on the suit by the petitioner
herein er the suit schedule ‘A’
Ҥ.;i1eluding the petitioner and for
other incidemgl vreI:Vifs.2 ‘fI’he:’..’e’pIese;at rcspcmdents who are the
, }ega1_~ie1e3feeenta;iiV€S.,.’F?f~ the plainfifl had tendered evidence
when the case was posted for mass»
‘ said witness on 12.01.2006, the counsel
V -engaged petitioner was not in a position to cross-
viihe said witness. The trial Court had therefoze
that there was no cross—exami11ation and proceeded
VT “further with the suit. The petitioner having fileti an application
Z»
wp§2344.06
seeking to meal! P’W’–1 for cross-exaazinafion the
appiicaiion having been rejected, the petitioner is
Court.
3. This Court by its order datwv”
emergent notice to the mspondents
of stay. The petition has now up fer’ V’
in *3» map after selvice gs ‘:ngpofiden:s;” The suit
is of the year 1997. The {:11 the suit have
been stayed foe éaiilmestiz’ of the
petitioner is pendency of this
writ civil suit and would
enable proceedings. It would
hence be ajppgnptiate, ‘extent: there was default on the part of
the petntioner, flzetfiist instance, to permit cross-cxan1inat11on
ta’..,e men’ jvéazljudicntéen would be free from any aneged
of opportunity which the petitioner may
_ set ujnet etage. In any event to advance the course of
jusfice, ifvis: appropriate that the petitioner be granted an
Wbfle placing the petifimner on terms in so far as
fmfifioner being permitted to emss-examine PW~1 in order
6
wpl2344.{}6
to avoid further delay of the proceedings. This Court degms it
proper to allow this Writ petition and permit the to
cross-examine PW-1 which may Iightiy have
the trial Court in the first instan<:§..A,V »_Then£"'i3— j'n_:~3i:ic e"».
caused in the petitioner being so pcfinimgd
of Rs.3,000/- to the mspondefitsgplaiiiiéfifs at
hearing before the trial b
4. The petition is aceo’rd:’ J ‘n L -.
Jml –