DR. SUMAN SINGH Vs. SANDHYA VAIDYANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ petitions are filed by the plaintiff in Original Suit No.6467 of 2015 and the plaintiff in Original Suit No.6376 of 2015 on the file of the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court '), challenging the order dtd. 16/2/2022, allowing IAs.12 and 13 and IAs.9 and 10 in Original Suits respectively, filed by the defendant.

(2.) The relevant facts for adjudication of these writ petitions are that the plaintiff filed suit, seeking damages of Rs.5,00,000.00 and Rs.2,50,000.00 respectively, as compensation for defamation caused to plaintiffs with other consequential relief. In the said suit, the defendant entered appearance and filed written statement. In the meanwhile, defendant has filed application in IA.12 and IA.9 respectively under Sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to reopen the case; and IA.13 and IA.10 respectively, under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code to recall PW1 for further Cross-examination. The said applications was resisted by plaintiffs. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, by impugned order dtd. 16/2/2022, allowed the applications in IAs.12 and 13 and IAs.9 and 10. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs have preferred these writ petitions.

(3.) I have heard Sri. Rajesh B.L., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, who contended that on the earlier occasion also similar applications have been filed by the defendant and the opportunity has been given to the defendant to cross-examine PW1. Thereafter, defendant has filed these applications only with a view to protract the proceedings. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order passed by the trial Court requires to be interfered with in these writ petitions. He further contended that applications have been filed by the defendant to recall the order dtd. 7/2/2020, whereas the suit was not listed before the trial Court on 7/2/2020 and therefore, he submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court is contrary to the records and as such, prays for interference of this Court.