- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19984 W.P. No.20064/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.20064/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. M. PUSHPALATHA W/O M. VENKATARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 2. M. VENKATARAMAPPA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 3. ANUSHA .V D/O M. VENKATARAMAPPA AGED ABUT 30 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF JADERI VILLAGE, HOLUR POST -563 102 KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.N. HARISH, ADV.,) AND: VIJAYADEV N.G. S/O GIRIYAPPA MAJOR IN AGE R/O NELAVAGILU VILLAGE POST HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VENKATESH KAMATH B.R. ADV.,) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19984 W.P. No.20064/2021 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DTD.18.3.2021 AND 01.10.2021 PASSED BY VII ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM BENGALURU IN MVC NO.4128/2017 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND G RESPECTIVELY AND THEREBY PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO CROSS EXAMINE PW4 IN MCV NO.4128/2017 ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM BENGALURU & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the orders dated 18.03.2021 and 01.10.2021 passed in M.V.C.No.4128/2017 by VII Additional Judge and ACMM and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal'). 2. Sri.P.N.Harish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the death of their son Supreeth Gowda.V in a road accident. In the said proceedings, the petitioners examined PW-4 Sri.Munesh N. by way of filing an affidavit in lieu of the examination-in- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19984 W.P. No.20064/2021 chief. In the examination-in-chief, PW-4 deposed that on the date of accident, one Sri.Darshan was driving the vehicle involved in the accident and stated that he has lodged a complaint with the jurisdictional police. However, in cross-examination, he turned hostile and stated that the deceased Supreeth Gowda.V was driving the car and also stated that he has not given any complaint. Hence, the said witness was re-examined. In the re-examination also, he spoke against the stand of the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners filed an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC'), to re-call PW-4 for cross-examination. The said application came to be rejected on the ground that the said witness was not treated as hostile and thereafter, the petitioners filed another application under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, 'the Act') read with Section 151 of the CPC to treat PW-4 as a hostile witness and permit the petitioners to cross-examine him. The said application also came to be rejected. In support - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19984 W.P. No.20064/2021 of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of RAJIV VIJAYASARATHY RATHNAM Vs. SUDHA SEETHARAM1 and submits that the concept of hostile is not restricted only to the criminal jurisprudence but even in the civil proceedings if the witness speaks against the interest of the person who examines, he would have a right to cross-examine him. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.Venkatesh Kamath B.R., learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned orders of the Tribunal and submits that the respondent filed objections to the claim petition wherein it has been specifically pleaded at paragraph 5 that the deceased Supreeth Gowda was driving the vehicle and not Sri.Darshan. It is submitted that PW-4 was further examined by the petitioners' counsel which is evident from the order sheet. Hence, there is no question of further re- calling PW-4 for cross-examination which is impermissible. 1 W.P.No.14082/19 dt. 16.10.19 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19984 W.P. No.20064/2021 It is submitted that to treat the witness as hostile is the discretion of the Court and the Tribunal, by giving cogent reasons, has refused to exercise the said discretion. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioners as well as the respondent are not in dispute that the petitioners have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is registered as MVC No.4128/2017. In the said proceedings, the respondent has filed objections. The objections clearly indicate that the deceased Supreeth Gowda was driving the vehicle. The claimants examined themselves as witnesses and thereafter, they have examined one Munesh as PW-4. The affidavit evidence of PW-4 clearly indicates that he has clearly deposed before the Tribunal that on the date of accident, one Sri.Darshan - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19984 W.P. No.20064/2021 was driving the car and immediately after the accident, a crime was registered based on his statement. The said witness was cross-examined by the respondent. However, in the cross-examination, he has turned hostile and contrary to his evidence, he has spoken that the deceased Supreeth Gowda was driving the car and he was not possessing the driving licence. He has also denied that he has given any statement before the police. The said witness was re-examined by the petitioner. In the re- examination also, he was consistent with regard to the fact that the deceased Supreeth Gowda was driving the car. The applications were filed to re-call the said witness for cross-examination and to treat the said witness as hostile under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC and under Section 154 of the Act. Both the applications came to be rejected. 6. It is to be noticed that, to treat the witness as hostile under Section 154 of the Act, the discretion lies with the Court. A perusal of Section 154 of the Act - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19984 W.P. No.20064/2021 indicates that the Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in the cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 of the Act creates a right in favour of the person who calls a particular person as a witness to cross-examine him, however, grant of such permission is a discretion of the Court. In the case on hand, the witness i.e. PW-4 has clearly deposed before the Tribunal that on the date of accident one Sri.Darshan was driving the vehicle. However, the said witness turned hostile in the cross-examination and stated that the deceased was driving the car. The evidence of PW-4 clearly demonstrates that he turned hostile and spoke contrary to the interest of the petitioners. Under such circumstances, the petitioners have every right to cross- examine such witness to elicit the truth. More so, when the learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the jurisdictional police, after investigation, has filed a charge sheet against one Darshan, considering the nature - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19984 W.P. No.20064/2021 of the dispute between the parties, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in refusing to exercise its discretion to treat PW-4 as a hostile witness and permit the counsel for the petitioners to cross-examine PW-4. The said witness i.e. PW-4 has spoken contrary to the interest of a person who has brought him before the Court. Under such circumstances, he has every right to cross-examine the said witness so that the truth can be elicited. 7. This Court, in the case of RAJIV VIJAYASARATHY RATHNAM referred supra, has held that in civil matters also, the witness can be considered as hostile and the Court has the discretion to treat a particular witness as hostile. The prima facie material available on record clearly indicates that PW-4 has turned hostile against the interests of the petitioners. I am of the view that it is a fit case to exercise the discretionary power under Section 154 of the Act, to meet the ends of justice. Once PW-4 is cross-examined by the petitioner, it is open - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19984 W.P. No.20064/2021 for the Tribunal to accept the reliable portions and reject the unreliable part of his evidence. Hence, the said witness is required to be treated as hostile under Section 154 of the Act, by permitting the petitioners to cross- examine the said witness. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned orders dated 18.03.2021 and 01.10.2021 passed in M.V.C.No.4128/2017 by the Tribunal are set aside. (iii) The Tribunal shall summon PW-4 and the petitioners are permitted to cross-examine the said witness on the next date of hearing. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15