HEMA HARANHA AND ORS. Vs. A. MARIYAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are defendants 2 and 6 in O.S. No. 3293/2007 on the file of the 5th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30-10-2014 rejecting I.A. Nos. 28 and 29, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.

(2.) The respondent herein filed a suit seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the suit schedule property. The defendants 2 and 6 entered appearance and filed written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed necessary issues. On the basis of the issues framed, the parties went for trial. The plaintiff was examined as P.W. 1 on 9-8-2011, thereafter the case was posted for his cross-examination. On 20-09-2011, P.W. 1 was cross-examined in part. The case was posted on 15-11-2011. On that day, P.W. 1 was absent. In view of that, the cross examination of P.W. 1 was closed and D.W. 1 was examined on 1-8-2012. On 29-08-2012, the case was posted for cross-examination of D.W. 1. In the meantime, the application was filed for recalling the evidence of P.W. 1 for further cross-examination. On various dates, the parties were not present and due to many reasons, the matter was being adjourned. On 8-9-2014, the case was posted for further cross-examination of P.W. 1 and on that day, there was no representation for defendants 2 and 6. In view of that, further cross-examination of P.W. 1 was recorded as NIL; P.W. 1 was discharged and plaintiffs evidence was closed. The case was posted for cross-examination of D.W. 1 on 15-09-2014. On that day, D.W. 1 was absent. Since, D.W. 1 was not available for cross-examination, the evidence of D.W. 1 discarded. Thereafter, the defendants 2 and 6 filed applications I.A. Nos. 28 and 29 for recalling P.W. 1 for further cross-examination and also for cross-examination of D.W. 1. The plaintiff filed objections to the said applications contending that though opportunity was given to defendants 2 and 6, they have not availed the said opportunity. Apart from that, an application for reopening the evidence of P.W. 1 has not been filed. Hence, sought for dismissal of those two applications.

(3.) The Trial Court after considering the matter in detail, taking note of the adjournments taken in the matter, and further taking into consideration the fact that P.W. 1 was cross-examined at length and the evidence runs into more than 13 pages, held that the defendants 2 and 6 only with an intention to dodge the proceedings, have filed these two applications. Accordingly, rejected both the applications, by its order impugned in these writ petitions. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petitions have been filed by defendants 2 and 6.