A 1 _
EN THE HIGH CO URT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24'?" DAY OF JANUARY 2C)--U
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MI-'{.JUS'1'ECE RAM MoHsa;{\'I
Wan' PETITION Nos. 32433/2€}1O '
2224/2011 -1' 'V
BE§'iW EDEN:
L M K NAGARAJ mo
s/0 M KRESHNAEAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R,/O OLD No.59. NEWNO. 1.6 _
136T" CROSS. KUMAR.S_\3"'AM':/ IJ;'§.'x'§JOUT. _
BANGALORE
1{AJARAMHEGI.3E "
s/0 RV }+:E:3:3'_E _ I
AGED AB_QU'§*4&5. YEIARS , .
R/O Q LI) NO.20',1'_;\}'EW_N_O';~~i'_6 /4, '
xv
E3V2--w..)._c:eQs;:a ~z<:_;}1wA:mé»=.IA:vzY LAYOW
13ANGA:.oRE~«."L«. " ..
_ ~ _ ' ...PE'FE'i'IONBRS
(BY SR1. VE.E_RENI_)}{A P;=.'1';2,._,:+;1)v$}
% 'A
" .(}0PAL "Q-§§,NG}*§. é_
. 2 ' .320 HAN'UM;x_N" s__1NGH
' AGIZEB 538-QU'F' 5.2 'f.i'EAE~ZS
.:2;Q%N0;95@_g42.;;8:'Il CROSS,
{3QKU'L 1 STAGE; 151-' PHASE
:v:ANsin"':f'U'rI0N OF H\:'DIA PRAYWG TO QUASPE 1 5313:"? AS-3i§}E THE';
r;
6;
ORIEER I"}A'§'ED 4.8.2510 PASSES BY TI-EE LEAR1\TE3D VH ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL JUDGE ON IA, NCX1? IN 05. NO.2247/£2907' LE.
AE's§N§XURE~F.
THESE west ARE COMING ON FOR eEa;,'HEAmNGVVT;1_i'se.DAY,
THE cover emeeiree FGLLQWING: ~
ORDER
On the oral request of the'”Eea.rne’e£ Veetajnggfi/1
I’€p1’€S€I’1tiIIg defer3.da_nt’s eQunse1__i1:’1-_tCt.S.Nee;.2~2-4&7
the presence of the plainttffei.heeuneei, the Cit}?
Civii Judge, CCH~19″,~..pass~ed eider réc’a11i:ig PWS. 1
6%: 2 for cross-examinaettiefg. defendante
flied I.A.N0. ‘€et_’re0:;;er; ffierrnit him to Eead
evicgeme-V theeee-eyorder dt. 15/3/2010
adjofifniflg ‘ for evidence of the
defe:;dat:t”..en 23/ after closing the side of the
p}:§.ii1t;ff who v§}eLs5″”t10t tendered for er0ss~exam£nati01’:;,
was present before ceuttt It appears
&efe11djar1tj_:a;r1d eeunsei were net present ané a request
medevete aeijeurn the eaee was refused an& the
tiefendgenfe side was eioeed and the ease was pesteé fer
;é%<5;
\/37
arguinents can rnerits. At that stage. plaintiff filed
1.A.1\}’ol1 under Seo.15l CPC to recall. the order dt.
13 /4 /20 10 alleging th at the defendant had not
the relief of cross-examination of PWS.
was only to recall the stage for recording exriG’e1faeev.of the 9
defendant T he court below
request made by the learnerfl:”C§ou1iVSel.tor:
in the presence of tlie plailntiff:’2Vl1″i:eh \A}«éiS”‘alloWed and
PWS. 1 & 2 directed’ §i)e__.i:_llte1.1dl”e_:fed for cross-
exa,minatiox}.. “«::e;ieete_d by order dt.
4/ 8 20’1’Q.::-thieli3etitio’n-If
Counsel for the petitioner
submitsllthlat the in I.A.No.1O was not to recall
El}é1n’i——–1’1ot impressed by that submission in
oral request: of the learneci Counsel for
tl3_elldef€:nelent te recall PWS. 1 éiz 2 follewed by the order
diree’ting PWS. “i & 2 to be tendered fez” erase
e:a:a§i:1ii1at:ien9 if the defendant were tie depoeit cost. of
ts,”
Rss.1,500/e, because PW1 wee a Iesicierat of Bombay. In
that View of the mattel-, no exception can be taker; to the
reasons, flndi:r1gs and eoneiusions arrived
Court below in the order impugned.-A4″:’*Ca]AA1i’1§g”t
1nte1’fe1’e1’2ee exercising ju1″iSdlCti’OI”i’-i1I1d$§I’ A1u”t;v:.22V’7v.Qf the ‘
C0nst_itut_ion of indie.
3. Though learned’ etheflipetitioner
submits that the to Ve1’Ais:VA1V:V)0se of the
suit within a__ E think it
appropriate3._’:vth5§it,heitfis tot; to persuade the
court to the suit Concluded
within such reason to believe
will hot. be e;j”)’fisi.Ciereci’ txhetviiriefll Court.
Pet’itie_0″1 ~ §1’eeQ;’ding1y reg’ eeted.