Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.G.S.KAMAL
Abhishek Developers, A Partnership Firm – Appellant
Versus
Gowramma, W/o Late Marigowda – Respondent
ORDER :
M.G.S. KAMAL, J.
This petition is filed by defendants 4 and 5 in O.S.No.7646/2008 aggrieved by order dated 22.04.2024 rejecting their applications filed under Section 151 CPC and Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to recall, reopen cross examination of PW.1 and permission to lead defence evidence as per Annexures E, F and G respectively.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that along with the above suit, another suit in O.S.No.9300/2008 is clubbed and being tried together which also pertain to same property which is subject matter of the present petition. The petitioners herein are defendants 11 and 12 in the said suit. It is submitted that there are 195 defendants who are purchasers of the flats forming part of Apartment complex constructed on the subject property. A similar application had been filed in the aforesaid connected suit in O.S.No.9300/2008 which was also rejected by the trial Court. As against which the petitioners herein preferred writ petition in W.P.No.18227/2024 . This Court by order dated 08.01.2025 allowed the said writ petition and consequently allowed the application filed by the petitioners herein permitted them to cross examine PW1 on payment of cost of
The court upheld the importance of allowing defendants to recall and reopen cross-examination to ensure fair trial, despite procedural timelines or prior judgments in clubbed cases.
The Court ruled that reopening witness evidence for cross-examination under CPC Order XVIII Rule 17 is permissible only to clarify ambiguities, not to fill evidence gaps after closure, and subsequent....
Reopening evidence or recalling witnesses post-trial requires compelling justification; mere intent to fill evidential gaps is insufficient.
The court emphasized the need for timely proceedings and ruled that an absence of a written statement does not negate the right to cross-examine, but delaying tactics signify abuse of process.
The court may grant a final chance to a negligent plaintiff to adduce further evidence and cross-examine a witness, subject to payment of costs, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and protect subst....
Repeated applications for recalling witnesses without justifiable reasons can lead to dismissal of petitions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
