Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24826
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
JAYANT BANERJI, J
SMT. JAYANTHI – Appellant
Versus
SRI. YOGISH SHETTY, RENUKAMBA S/O THAMMAYYA SHETTY – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 16967 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.JEEVAN.K
For the Respondents: SRI.PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT
Repeated applications for recalling witnesses without justifiable reasons can lead to dismissal of petitions.
Headnote:This writ petition challenges the order dated 28.05.2024 under Article 227, aiming to quash the rejections on IA Nos. 14 & 15 for recalling PW1. The court found that the previous orders were justified given the repeated applications made by the petitioner, confirming no grounds to allow them. The primary issue was whether sufficient grounds were made out, and the ruling concluded that the petition was without merit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. justification for dismissing repetitive applications. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 2. court's ruling on reopening a case. (Para 3 , 4) |
ORAL ORDER
1. List has been revised. No one appears for the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent is present.
3. By means of this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 28.05.2024 passed on IA Nos. 14 & 15 filed by Defendant No.1/petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , [CPC] and Section 151 of CPC, whereby the prayer made to the trial Court to re-open the case and recall the PW.1 for the purpose of cross-examination was rejected.
4. I have perused the impugned order and find that, Point No.1 framed was, whether the defendant No.1 has made out sufficient grounds to allow the application. The Court noticed that both the applications were filed in the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents with respect to the suit schedule property. It is noted from perusal of the applications filed by defendant No.1 that they were to re-open and to recall PW.1 for the purpose of cross-examination. The Court noted that when the matter was posted for final arguments on merits, again an application was filed to cross-examine PW.1. After noting a catena of decisions of this Court, the Trial Court held that defendant No.1 has not made out any reasonable ground to allow the applications. IAs were accordingly rejected.
5. I find no error in the order impugned. Given the fact that the suit is of the year 2018 and repeatedly applications have been filed by the defendant No.1 for the very same purpose, the Court was justified in rejecting the IAs. This petition lacks merit and therefore, it is dismissed.
