2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 46029
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON9BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.11134 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. V. LALITHAMMA
W/O LATE SRI. T. S. PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT: NO.527/B, 4TH A CROSS
12TH A MAIN, OPP. RAJIV GANDHI PARK
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
A SECTOR, BANGALORE-560 064.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. UMESH R S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE CHIEF MANAGER
D H F L VYSYA HOUSING FINANCE LTD.
NO.284, 2ND FLOOR, B/W 17TH & 18TH CROSS
SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE-560 003
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
MR.R. RAJASHEKAR.
2 . SMT. SEEMA
W/O LATE MOHAN BABU
D/O P.KRISHNAPPA
2
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.39, 1ST E MAIN
DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD,
GIRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 095.
3 . SMT. P. SUCHITHRA
W/O MR. SURESH
AND D/O LATE PAPANNA
R/AT NO.50, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
12TH CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR
YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064.
&.RESPONDENTS
(R-1 -SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED
VIDE ORDER DATED 14.03.2019 NOTICE TO R2 AND R3
IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR
SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 15.02.2019, OVER
RULING THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER
AND PASSED BY THE LEARNED LIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 60, BANGALORE CITY, IN O.S.116
OF 2016, (CCH NO.60) AS PER ANNEXURE-G.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 13.06.2022, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated
15.02.2019, passed in O.S.No.116/2016, by the LIX
3
Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-
60), has filed this writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition
are as under:
Petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.116/2016 for
mandatory
injunction
against
the
respondents.
Respondents No.1 and 3 filed written statement
separately. The Trial Court on the basis of pleadings
of parties, framed issues. Petitioner was examined as
PW-1
and
was
duly
cross-examined
by
the
respondents. Petitioner closed his side. The official of
respondent No.1 was examined as DW-1. During the
course of cross-examination, certain questions were
asked to DW-1 for which he tried to look into the
office file he had brought along with him to answer
the same. Petitioner raised objection stating that the
witness is not permitted to refer the office file. The
Trial Court overruled the objection and permitted DW-
4
1 to refer the file brought by him. Aggrieved by the
same, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Notice was issued to respondent No.1.
Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.1 remained
unrepresented. Insofar as respondents No.2 and 3
are concerned, petitioner filed a memo seeking
dispensation of notice to respondents No.2 and 3.
This Court vide order dated 14.03.2019, dispensed
notice to respondents No.2 and 3.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that DW-1 being the witness has no right to refer the
file brought by him during the course of cross-
examination. He submits that the respondents have
not produced the said documents before the Court.
The petitioner cannot be taken by surprise by
referring the file brought by him. He submits that the
5
Trial Court committed an error in passing the
impugned order. Hence on these grounds, prays to
allow the writ petition.
6. Perused the records and considered the
submissions
made
by
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner.
7. There is no dispute that the petitioner filed a
suit
for
mandatory
injunction
directing
the
respondents 1 and 2 to deliver the original documents
of title deeds of the schedule property to the plaintiff
against the respondents. The respondent No.1 3 Bank
examined the Branch Manager as DW-1. During the
course of cross-examination, the said witness was
referring to the file which was brought by him. The
petitioner raised objection for referring the office file.
In order to consider the case in hand, it is necessary
6
to refer Section 159 of the Indian Evidence Act which
reads as under:
<159. Refreshing memory:
A
witness
may,
while
under
examination,
refresh
his
memory
by
referring to any writing made by himself at
the time of the transaction concerning
which he is questioned, or so soon
afterwards that the Court considers it likely
that the transaction was at that time fresh
in his memory.
The witness may also refer to any
such writing made by any other person,
and read by the witness within the time
aforesaid, if when he read it he knew it to
be correct.
When witness may use copy of
document to refresh memory:
Whenever a witness may refresh his
memory by reference to any document, he
may, with the permission of the Court,
refer to a copy of such document:
7
Provided the Court be satisfied that
there is sufficient reason for the non-
production of the original.
An expert may refresh his memory by
reference to professional treatises.=
8. Section 159 of the Act provides that witness
while under examination refresh his memory by
referring to any writing made by himself at the time of
transaction concerning which he is questioned, or the
transaction that was at that time fresh in his memory.
DW-1 being an official witness is deposing before the
Court based on the records maintained by the Bank
and not on his personal knowledge. The official
witness may refer the office file for refreshing the
memory under examination. If the official witn