IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 2″” DAY OF N0vEMB 13T§ 2009 % ” T
BEFORE}
THE HON’ BLE MR. JU§”rTg:E Rr\\7_} u
WRIT PETITION N0. _161.i2uV$~v:C).F_2007 («GM-Cégvc)
BETWEEN:
Smt. Lakshma.nfx=zTLa–,._ H V _
W/0. Afljan3IjPa, , ..
Aged 1\/Iajdré, ‘ b ‘
Residingat “V:..vNag§;1resI3wafa-,’ ~ V V
Naga{:é1ha1I_i;’«~:’ ‘V
KR. P;1ra–.H0.b1’i;:”-.,A”T _
Bangaloffi 4
Represent’ed_V by her :A A ._ S
PDvgeI’ Attorney ‘Holder,
” _ S1.iTi’:~ A_…DN22.garaju’,’ ….. .. <
. , 'S./30. .LéiH%. Afi}.f_1nappa,
'Aged years,
~.R'c.gi'difig"_i_n__théabove address PETITIONER
Sh'§i§.VDeresh Kumar, Advocate)
V' Smt. Mallika Shivanandam,
W/0. C. Shivanandam,
Aged about 39 years,
Nagareshwara Nagamahakii,
KR. Puram Hobli,
064"
Ex)
Bangalore East Taluk,
Bangalore »~ 560 077
2. Shri. N. Kodandararnaiah,
Aged about 63 years, 3
Residing at :
K. N'arayanapur21 KR. Purarri Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk Now. ' 3
Bangalore ~ 560 07′? ” ; ..,”=RESPOND”ENTS
~$*##*r
This ‘Wm Petition’«is;lfiled_,tmrierlAitieles 226 and 227 of
the Con.stif:ttio_.ri’vofl.l’11d.ié’*15ra§’ing–to-quash / set aside the order
dated 2i8,eo9;r~2eoo i’1gpas:;eti on L25. i§o.XVi by the Horfbie 11
Additional l’CiiVii_il .l7t1dge”».( Senio_r”lDivision), Bangalore Rural
District, Bangallore.No.’992/1996 vide Annexure ~ B and
allow theeéiici applietuion.-.§i’de’ Anenxure M» A.
C Wri_tBPeti.tion coming on for Preliminary Hearing
” _ (B}:(:f}i”o1.i;3)..this déyv,v—-the’ Court made the following: »~
B O R D E R
Tlie”i3eltitioner’s applkzatioiz under Section ESE of the
Code.’ Civil Procedure to recall l)W–2 for further cross-
l’rAv_le’xarninati(>n was rejected by the Trial Court and hence the
* ” [present petition.
es’/5″‘
2. Shri. Veeresh Kumat learned counsel 2ip~pe._;1iii__i1’gj’ for,
the pet.itionei’ by placing reliance on. his Af’i”id;.wit_:c~cgntehd_s that
it was only on E9.09.?..007 that for the flier Atimle-_t’he :’h,§tv~ip.g
been posted for CF08S-€X£1]”I1ii1EilVlC}’11_VOf I)’lJ.\/’–i2,.o Vceotteihj d.ocjuti.1ents.o V *
were produced. The petitioner havilig been itutdevvan géppiicutitin
for the certified copy t§i”tthe’–safmr}: dial ..not_ receive the said
documents. The cli’t).ss–e,f{ain’iiit§tioiniofthe Cififfindullt was closed,
due to the c_io<:u'ment. The petitioner
has been V ii
served and have remained un-
1*epreserttedD ”
V’ Ou.._._lieari.ng the counsel for the petitioner, it. would
ap’lp_eei*l”t.havt_ thei’dt)cume.nts were required by the petitioner in
(_>1’dez’ toas’siSt him to question _DW~2 with regzml to the same.
2 Due to “non–availabi’lity of the documents as on that date, the
evidence came to closed which has affected the questioning that
he would have made to the defenclant if he had received the
99/:
4
documents. The Trial Court has faiied to consider this aspe-ct of
the matter. In the absence of the documents, the petiti()tjae;’_aeo_u1d
not have cross–examined the defendant.
5. For the aforesaid reasons the order-d21teti~..Z8′;O9.2OQ9″we
passed in LA. No.XVI by the Ieztrned EI::’Atijditi;)_tia’E:’C
(Senior Divisioifi), Balngalore ‘R_Li’r~:.i] District, .Bar1gzL1_o1=eV,irri O.S.@’
N0,992/ 1996 is setasidetiitd 1 a1.}’tiw–e.df wiiit petition
is disposed off accordingly. ‘ ii
in VECWETE épeettdency of the suit from the year 1996
the Trial Cio.1_1:’tv.shz31E.i riijake endeavor to dispose of the suit not
three ih’oi1.thsifr()m the date of receipt of the certified
Li ::op’y o”f».t_his’ “o
‘ _ Ordeerecit”aiccordingiy
Sd/~
i JUDGE