_ R/A No.60/1;" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT »., DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY iii. ' BEFORE _ M ¢ ¢ THE HONBLE DRJUSTICE K. WRIT PETITION NOS. 5551/2010'E;--5S5Z'454'/20}O.':TO:M;'O~FOI BETWEEN: J T 1 MRMICHAELJDRITO _ S/O LATE BASIL FRANCIS BRITG AGED ABOUT 68_YEARS.. . ' -- R/A.NO.60/1, V . . I COLES ROAD; V . FRAZER TO);/VN" ~ BANGALOREg~5~f__ 2 MRSALOMA BR1TO'l_ _ W/O.M1'CH;->\ELJ'B.}RITO _ AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS" R/ANO.60';'A;," _ ' 2 COLES ROAD; _ - V FRAZER TOWN " " ~BAN'-GALsf9RE~5 3 W/O .§&1ICI~fl'_xEL' BRITO AGED'ABOUT._E4 YEARS COLES ROAD, 'T -- --. FRAZER TOWN. _ v~EAAjGA_LORE--5 PETITICNERS (By Sri S R KRISHNAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 JOHN EMANUEL LAWERENCE BR!-TO--. D SINCE DEAD BY LR 'J S MRSGRACY BRITO AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS , _ W/O.LATE MAJOR J E L ' _ R/A NO.8 (OLD N059) VVHEELERROAD '- 2ND CROSS, B-ANGALORE~56OQ.05'v._ 2 THE COMMISSIONER _ BANGALORE MAHANAGARAPALIRE ' _ NRSQUAREJC.ROAD,=""-Q" " 1.. EANGALORE~5.6Ooo:2 ' I _ _ RESPONDENTS THESE ,W;Ps.._ FILEF}; PRAYING TC}"'QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANX-L D'I'.5f~";y.2_.2«0IOPASSED INOS 8412 /1997 BY THE ADDITIONAL 'aCI'i'Y 'CIVIL~«..JUDGnE,_. BANGALORE (CCH NO.9) ALLOWING THE 2:, APPLICATIONS DT. 27.1.2010 FILED BY RESPONDENT NO_..41/RLAiNTi.;%*E.G.AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS ALL THE 4 APPLICATIONS." .vA:P1'f_'.TI'1'IONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARIRG fI_'HIS_DAi', COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER
S ;*3¢titiOhers/defendant nos. 1 to 3 in O.S.NO. 8412/1997
T.4f”‘1fi3″£i3.é”0f:,ACfditiO1’1al City Civil Judge, Bangalore, {CCH-9] are
the witnesses. In this regard, Iearned counsel for the petitioners
cited two decisions reported in 1995[5]
[N.M.Viswanath vs. B.V.Narjundappa, by LRS &
2009 Supreme Court 1604 [ Vadircg Naggappca.Veff1eI_coft”s.
Chanel Prabhakar Gogate].
3. The contention of thee: fj\I’:n.5el’§ for the
petitioners as to why the p1aivr1’tif*f’ –..DW–1 and DW–2
and what questions th.ey want’ :’»’ti’i’.scIosed in the
affidavits holds no if :.q:uestio’os’afeftiisclosed, the very
purpose of the defeated. Cross-
examination ‘truthfulness of the statements
made by a 3.1.1’e§&affiifiation~in-chief. The objects of
cross–exami1j1–ation ai”e._: ‘ ~
[IA]: v .. _’Io_Aciesat.r:o’y’V or weaken the evidentiary value
of theKv_ittness_”of adversary;
I2] facts in favour of the cross»
:”.v4.4eX.aia2ini.ng Vviawyefs client from the mouth of the
of the adversary party;
I’
In the result,
dismissed.
Pr/-
the writ petitions fail and they are hereby
3&3″
.110 »,r*'”v$ z*’°”$