The instant writ petition is filed by defendant No.1 in

O.S.No.3036/2009, pending before the Court of XXXVIII

Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter

referred to as 'Trial Court') with a prayer to quash the order

dated 14.03.2019 passed in the said suit vide Annexure-A.

5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

also perused the material available on record.

The respondents, though served in the matter

have remained unrepresented.

Facts of the case leading to filing of this writ

petition are that O.S.No.3036/2009 was filed before the Trial

Court for the relief of partition and separate possession of the

suit schedule property. On the basis of rival pleadings of the

parties, the Trial Court has framed issues and thereafter the

matter was posted for trial. After completion of recording of

the plaintiff's witnesses, defendant No.1 was examined as

DW.1 on 16.02.2019 and thereafter he was partly cross-

examined by the advocate for the plaintiff. However, on

11.03.2019, since the advocate for plaintiff was not present,

cross-examination of DW.1 by the plaintiff was taken as nil

and the matter was posted for further evidence by the side of

defendants. Subsequently on 14.03.2019, advocate for

plaintiff had filed an application to recall the order dated

11.03.2019 and also to permit the plaintiff to further cross-

examine DW.1. The said application was allowed on the same

6

date and DW.1 was further cross-examined in full by the

plaintiff. However, the prayer made by the other defendants

to cross-examine DW.1 was objected to by advocate for

defendant No.1 on the ground that they have not made any

separate application. This objection was rejected by the Trial

Court and the matter was posted for cross-examination of

DW.1 by the other defendants and also for further evidence

on the side of defendants. Defendant No.1 being aggrieved by

the same, has filed this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

since cross-examination of DW.1 was taken as nil on

11.03.2019, the Trial Court was not justified in permitting the

other defendants to cross-examine DW.1 as they had not filed

any separate application. He submits that the application to

recall DW.1 and to permit to cross-examine him further was

filed only by the plaintiff and therefore the Trial Court was not

justified in permitting the other defendants to cross-examine

DW.1.

The material on record would go to show that

defendant No.1 was examined before the Trial Court as DW.1

7

and he was partially cross-examined by the plaintiff's

advocate and for his further cross-examination, the matter

was adjourned to 11.03.2019. On 11.03.2019, though DW.1

was present, counsel for the plaintiff was absent and

therefore further cross-examination of DW.1 was taken as nil

and the matter was posted for further evidence by the side of

defendants. Immediately, thereafter an application was filed

on 14.02.2019 by the counsel for the plaintiff seeking

permission of the Court to recall the order dated 11.03.2019

and also permit the plaintiff to further cross-examination of

DW.1. The said application was allowed and the plaintiff's

counsel was cross-examined DW.1 in full on 14.03.2019

itself.

A perusal of the order sheet would go to show

that on 11.03.2019, while closing the further cross-

examination of DW.1 by the plaintiff, the Trial Court has not

given any opportunity to the defendants to cross-examine

defendant No.1. The suit is for partition and the other

defendants are also claiming their right over the suit schedule

property and it is not in dispute that other defendants, who

8

have been permitted to cross-examine DW.1 are coparceners.

Under these circumstances, I am of the considered view that

the Trial Court was fully justified in permitting the other

defendants to cross-examine DW.1 on the oral request made

by them and there is no illegality or irregularity in the said

order, which has been impugned in this writ petition.

Therefore, I find no merit