Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 55782 (KAR)

SMT AKKAYAMMA v. SRI VENKATESH

WP/25166/2022 · 2025-07-29

Jyoti Mulimani

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29026 WP No. 25166 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 25166 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. AKKAYAMMA W/O LATE MUNIANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 2. SRI. SHIVARAJ S/O LATE MUNIANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.5/1, 1ST 'D' MAIN ROAD, GORAGUNTEPALYA, BANGALORE-22. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHOKKA REDDY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.VENKATESH S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 2. SMT. VARALASKHMI W/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.21, 1ST 'D' MAIN ROAD, GORAGUNTEPALYA, Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29026 WP No. 25166 of 2022 YESHWANTHAPURA, BANGALORE-560 022. …RESPONDENTS (R1 & 2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Chokkareddy., counsel for the petitioners has appeared in person. 2. Notice to the respondents was ordered on 02.01.2023. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondents are served and unrepresented. They have neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 3. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (1) Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the Addl. City Civil - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29026 WP No. 25166 of 2022 & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-19) in O.S.No.6950/2016 vide Annexure-A. (2) Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 07.12.2022 passed by the Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-19) in O.S.No.6950/2016 vide Annexure-B. 4. Counsel for the petitioners has urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 5. The short point that requires consideration is whether the orders of the Trial Court requires interference. 6. Suffice it to note that the plaintiffs filed a suit seeking certain reliefs. The matter was set-down for cross examination of DW1 on 25.11.2022, on that day, a oral request was made by the counsel for the plaintiffs to grant time for cross-examination of DW1 stating that counsel on record was held up in High Court. The oral request was rejected by the Trial Court and the case was posted for arguments on 07.12.2022. The case was listed on 07.12.2022, on that day, an application was filed by counsel for the plaintiffs under Order - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29026 WP No. 25166 of 2022 18 Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of CPC to recall the order dated 25.11.2022 i.e., to the stage of cross of DW1. The defendant did not oppose the application. However, the Trial Court rejected the application solely on the ground that sufficient time was given for the plaintiffs to cross-examine DW1 and they have not cross-examined him. The copy of the application is furnished along with the Writ Petition and the same is marked as Annexure-L. Smt.Akkayamma - first plaintiff has sworn to a declaration of facts and she has stated that her counsel was held up in the High Court, hence a request was made for grant of time to cross-examine DW1. She stated that if an opportunity is not provided to cross-examine DW1, she will be deprived of her rights. Taking note of the fact that counsel for the plaintiffs was held up in the High Court, the Trial Court ought to have accorded time for the plaintiffs to cross-examine DW1. Hence, the orders of the Trial Court rejecting the oral request and the application are liable to be set-aside. 7. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The orders dated 25.11.2022 and 07.12.2022 passed by the Addl. City Civil & - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29026 WP No. 25166 of 2022 Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-19) in O.S.No.6950/2016 vide Annexures-A and B are quashed. The application filed by the plaintiffs is allowed. 8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44