AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H. Billappa, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents 1A to F.
In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have called in question, the order dated 30.7.2008, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gokak, sitting at Raibag, in O.S. No. 97/1994 on IAs-17 and 18.
The petitioners filed IAs. 17 and 18 to re-open the case and permit them to lead flesh evidence. The said applications have been rejected. Therefore, this petition.
The learned Counsel for petitioners contend that the trial Court has misread the directions of the appellate Court in R.A. 3/2003. He also invited my attention to the directions in R.A. 3/2003 and submitted that the Appellate Court has remanded the matter for fresh trial and therefore, the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the applications. He therefore submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for petitioner.
The point that arise for my consideration is whether the impugn order calls for interference
It is relevant to note in R.A. 3/2003, the Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 97/1994 and has remanded the matter for fresh trial and also has directed to give opportunity to cross-examination DWs.1 and 2. The Court has rejected the applications, on the ground that the Appellate Court, has directed to provide an opportunity ''to cross-examine DWs.1 and 2 and to dispose of the matter.
It is clear from the order passed by the Appellate Court, the matter is remanded for fresh trial. Therefore, there is no point in denying opportunity to the petitioners to lead their evidence. Therefore, in my considered view, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order at Annexure-''G'' passed on IAs. 17 and 18 is hereby quashed. The trial Court is directed to permit petitioners to lead their evidence by examining their witnesses and the prayer for expunging the evidence of PW. 1 is hereby rejected.