L
L
WPS N0.60282~283/ 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD H .
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY 09′ FEBRUARY?;.2d.’1C ”
BEFORE ” V
THE HON’lE3LE MR.JUsTICE:;éI}I3fI§Ir.s’II 13;
WRIT PETITIONS No.602§_32m28 3«/&21’o,_1o (GIvI.4-CFC’)
BEUNEEN:
RAGHAVENDRA ,.x .<
s /0 LAXMAN KALLAPIJRA ~ _
AGE 78 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTU_RE
R/O MENASIN_KAIGALLI:'= _ '
MANGALWARPETH; DAHRWAD '
GIRISI-1_ S';'Q'i€A:GH.1&VEND'EAV KALLAPUR
AGE 30 YEARSQOCCAGRICULTURE
R /Q M,ENAS~IILAI 'GALLI I
MAN'-GAI.WAR PE,TH;.D'HARWAD.
– K! …PETITIONERS
_ (BY sRI:III..KUSUMAKAR’AND ,
.$RI.I3_RAMoD S;’E$-HAT, ADV)
W V’ANAJ’};’j V’
/Q”1\/IO-HANRAO NAIK
AGE 62 YEARS, 0CC:I-IOUSE WIFE
I {LR/GPANDURANG NIVAS, SADANKERI
‘ 213113 CROSS DHARWAD
S”MT. LAXMIBAI w/0 VENKATESH KALLAPUR
AGE 73 YEARS, 0CC:I~IoUsI: WIFE
R/O NEAR KONNUR CLINIC HOSPITAL
WPS No.60282–283/2010
certified copies of the originals. At that time the petitioners
had no opportunity to cross–exarnine on those
the plaintiff had summoned the original V’
petitioners were under the impression that
examine the witnesses only after”«yVse_curinig~.
documents. V g
3. Subsequently, both defenda_n”L’ 2 a’n.d&_i”‘5 who were
represented by two sepa1″a_te..couinsei andvboth counsel insisted
for separate cross~examinatio”n,_V i
4. The trials _cons_id_e1’ing.__«*both applications found
that the :’;certified7co.pies been marked as Ex.D.29 to 31.
Both PWs–ia._and be’en”‘cross–examined by defendants 2
and 5 gandptheidoeuments have been marked in the evidence.
‘i’here”is reason to recaii the witnesses and subject them to
further croSSV4Vexa.3n~ination.
it 5. A’~-..Adrnitt_eid’1y, the documents have been marked though
i'”r__itheyp are vcertified copies and it is not the case of the parties
i pi.th_at.,thiese copies were marked subject to any objection. If the
.ii”‘~.sVdo_cfuments are marked and when an opportunity given to
‘V’
WPS .No.60282~283/2010
crosswexamine and the cross–examinatioI1 was completed, there
is no reason for recalling and subjecting the witnesses.’ for
further cross~~examir1ation. 4′ V
6. The trial court on appreciation of the K
that there is no merit in the applicatiorii ido not
grounds to interfere. However any argagfients
proof of contents of documents~–..:iL:;1VT5V«keot open. A’cieordiing1y,iii
petition is dismissed.
Sam
Iu<19°
Jm/–