IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOREJE».
DATED THIS THE 29"' DAY OF OCTOBER, 201.3.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.vErgJOGEO'PAL'A
WRIT PETITION NOS.13122j131234/'2{E3iG (G:§«I.4.cI>C)" E
BETWEEN:
1 SR1 P.N.ANADA SIHMA _ ._ . _ .
S/O LATE H.G.NARAYANArvIDRTHY if ;
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS V 2
R/AT NO.1950, - *
KOTWAL RAMAI_.Lf~"_Hu STREET . _
MYSORE. I
2 SRI P.N.GURLlRA3 ' I.
S/O LATE H~.G_. NARA"I':,!-\INA'EV3URTH'i'"*=~--
AGED AEOOT 61 YEA'R._S,=_ " __
R/AT NO.S8, 'G.H.v.,'s.--.LAvO:.;T'« "
8TH MAIN, W CROSS, "
VBAYANAGARA, =v' .HMIROLIDHAR
_SIO_LATE»,H.G';AIA'RA¥ANAMuRTHY
AGHIAAEOUVT 51,' 'YEARS
R/AT ':\£O.19:"3-O
_ 1<OT'wAL.._RAM«AIAH STREET
,_MYSoR..E.
' PETITIONERS
._ '(BY IQRAGHUPATHY, ADV.)
£._N'D.: _
SR1 P.N.VIJEi\EDRA
S/O LATE H . G. NARAYANAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
BEHIND MITHRA NIVAS
KUSHALNAGARA
SOMAVARPET TALUK.
SMT. LEELA
W/O VEKATACHALAPATHY -
R/AT KOTE, RERIYAPATTANA TOWN '
MYSORE DISTRICT.
P.N.PADMA
C/O SRI. P.N. MURULIDHAR »
R/AT KOTE, PERIYAPATTANA TOWN '
MYSORE DISTRICT . " '
R3 DELETED VIDE ORDER DATEDO-77f6:;V2Q.i_0-
P.N.l:AN,Ar;4'uRTHY "
AGED ABOuT'42'YEAR;s,' _ '
R/AT KOTE, RER:Y_A_PATT,AA_:AT~TAO_wN'
MYSORE. D.:.sTR1_cT."< :;,. A
SMTLALITRAMMA '
W/O LATE H;<3.Er»:.ARAYA'p1AMp'RTHY
AGEDABOUT 85_YEARS,"-
R/AT«;gOTE, RER1¥'A.RATTA.NA TOWN
'3"'TTMYSOREEDISTRICT. " """ "
O_Srv'.T."MADHu.'RAO_V
C,/_O-S R1 V'P.'Nv,,J_A'./¥A'&§HIMA
S RI N .3__AYASH IMA
{us/O LATE +3.6. NARAYANAMURTHY
V' "..jjRA6V '&=R7 DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 7.6.2010
P;'{\I.USHA
HS/70 S.s.MOHAN
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
' R/AT NO.1950,
KOTWAL RAMAIAH STREET
MYSORE.
2. The suit having been transferred to the Court of Civil
Judge (Sr. Dn.), Periyapattana, from the Court of Civil Judge.__(Sr.
Dn.), Hunsur, the Court has raised other additionalNis'sVu'es'--..:on
15.12.2009. Piaintiff filed I.A.23 on 9.3.10 to re-opfén
and I.A.24 to recall DW--1 for further""'cross?.exa.n§iVinati:o'nC
respect of the additional issues frameclfiin'*--_the .
defendant filed statement of objectio,r1s..to boththefapfplicatilons. V
The Trial Court has allowed rE,.As. Q23' an'd"'has'V4ordered
DW~:l. to keep himself present"be_fore~.the further cross-
examination by the_plaj:n'tiff The said order
has been questioned 't'h..eseV444Wwr_it'petitions.
3. ;Sri_ learned counsel appearing for
the .p'etitiVo'neFpoilriited outthat, the Trial Court has committed a
factual of which the impugned order has been
l'v.VrpVa3sed.f'v._Learne'd~'counsel pointed out that DW--3 has not
' ""d«éAp0Vsed gaftervthe additional issues were raised in the suit and on
A'-macfcount'ofthe misdirection, the impugned order has come to be
', t
4. Learned counsel appearing for the 15' respondent /
plaintiff contends that, DW~3 has deposed before the Court.-after
the additional issues have been raised and hence, the
order is justified.
5. I have perused the writ petiti’on’~pap5_ers.”
for consideration is, whether the impug
6. Defendant 7 is a V
separate written statement,”‘~.l,_ias .vco’n’cVede’di~.._the cl’airri of the
plaintiff and has sought allotrnent Evidence of
ow–3 is not plaintiff. Taking the said
circumstance into4..accounta,’th”e:ElTirial Court could not have passed
theV.i,rnpuVg’ri:,edLcrderwnidi-rec_t_i_ng the recalling of DW–§ for further
cross –‘e§§a”m ” V .,
AV”.~-.,,’AfteVr”_’*the;.additional issues were raised, indisputably,
Vifthe-contestlrlgéparties have not led any evidence. The plaintiff
.1 –hVas”fiI,eid’irnerno reserving right to lead rebuttal evidence on the
if’i-“jadd.i.tio’n§a»l'”issues. Such a right could have been reserved
.”””v..,Aprov:ided the contesting defendants had adduced any further
/’
/’
evidence after the additional issues were framed. Since the
contesting defendants did not lead any evidence on or.-after
15.12.09, the ground on which LAS. 23 and 24
aliowed, is irrationai and illegai. There is aisgf.”‘procVe’d’i]ra_i’_4’c M
impropriety committed by the Triai;’C’ourtA_ in
impugned order.
In the resuit, the writ petiti.dn–s are’—-aiiavq;gci\./,:yVya’n’d it the it
sac’?