The court has the discretion to allow or disallow an application to cross-examine a witness, even if the cross-examination is not completed within the time frame specified in Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC.

- 1 -

WP No. 24427 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

WRIT PETITION NO. 24427 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1.

SRI D SAMBASIVA RAO

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

S/O D KOTESWARA RAO

R/AT NO.67, 3^RD CROSS

RAMAKRISHNA GARDENS

BEHIND GOWRI APARTMENTS

NEW BEL ROAD

BENGALURU - 560 054

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

SRI M ANANDA

S/O LATE MUNIRAJU

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

2.

SMT RATHNAMMA

W/O LATE MUNIRAJU

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2

ARE R/AT BETTENAHALLI VILLAGE

KUNDANA HOBLI

DEVANAHALLI TALUK

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110

Digitally signed

by VIDYA G R

Location: High

Court of

Karnataka

- 2 -

WP No. 24427 of 2022

3.

SRI YARLAGADDA @ VENKATESHWARALU

S/O LATE Y CHOUDARAMMA

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

R/AT KARAMCHEDU POST AND MANDAL

PRAKASAM DISTRICT

ANDHRA PRADESH - 523 271

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE

ORDER DTD 15.10.2022 IN O.S.NO.594/2016 PASSED BY THE

LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT

DEVANAHALLI, COPY WHEREOF IS AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

1. The petitioner has called in question the correctness of

the order dated 15.10.2022 in O.S.No.594/2016 whereby the

trial court, it is stated has not passed any order on the

applications I.A.No.7 and 8.

2. It is submitted that there are bonafide reasons for

such lapse regarding non-cross examining PW.1. However, the

court ought not to stand on technicalities and on appropriate

conditions allow the application to enable the proceedings to be

concluded.

- 3 -

WP No. 24427 of 2022

3. The learned counsel for defendant no.1 submits that

sufficient time has been taken and the matter has been

prolonged without any just cause.

4. Taking note that the proceedings are almost

concluded, it would meet the interest of justice if a final

opportunity is given and the defendants are permitted to

cross-examine PW.1.

5. Both sides submit that the trial court be directed to

dispose off the applications by putting the petitioner on terms

to prevent further delay.

6. However, learned counsel for petitioner submits that if

the applications are allowed, date may be fixed and he would

complete

cross-examination

of

PW.1

without

seeking

adjournment.

7. The learned counsel for respondents-plaintiffs submit

that cost may be imposed on the petitioner/defendant no.1 for

the lapse.

- 4 -

WP No. 24427 of 2022

8. In light of the facts made out and submission by both

sides,

it

would

meet

interest

of

justice

by

allowing

I.A.Nos.7 and 8.

Accordingly, I.A.Nos.7 and 8 are allowed. The stage of

the case is re-opened and PW.1 is recalled. PW.1 to be kept

present on the next date of hearing fixed before the trial court

and on that day, defendant no.1 who is the petitioner herein to

cross-examine PW.1. If the trial court is of the view that

cross-examination of PW.1 cannot be concluded, then only on

such opinion by the trial court the matter may be adjourned to

a different date. Petitioner has to cross-examine PW.1 on the

next date of hearing. Petitioner to pay cost of Rs.2,500/- to

each of the respondents. Accordingly, the petition is disposed

off.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NP