Sri Sudhakar Udupa vs Udupi Sri Adamar Mut Education Council

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Respondent filed a suit against the petitioner on 29.3.2005 to pass a decree for realization of Rs. 9,30,705.85 with interest and for grant of consequential reliefs. Petitioner who is the defendant in the suit filed written statement on 14.12.2005. He has resisted the suit by filing written statement. Based on the pleadings of the parties, issues having been raised, trial has taken place. At the stage of hearing of arguments of defendant, I.A.37 was filed to recall PWs.1, 2 and 6 for further cross-examination. I.A.38 was filed to reopen the case from the stage of arguments for the purpose of cross-examination of the said witnesses. The applications having been dismissed by an order dated 5.3.2013, these writ petitions have been filed. Sri S.S. Bharath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Trial Court has acted unreasonably in dismissing I.As.37 and 38. He submitted that there being a theft in the plaintiff Mutt, the same can be established by further cross-examination of Pws.1, 2 and 6. Learned counsel submitted that the Trial Court has passed the impugned order by acting with material irregularity and hence interference is warranted.

Perused the writ petitions record. Indisputably, entire trial of the suit has taken place. Both sides have adduced evidence and when the suit was at the stage of submission of reply argument of the defendant, I.As.37 and 38 were filed. The Trial Court has noticed that sufficient opportunity has been granted to the parties to adduce evidence. Even now also, the petitioner/defendant has not produced any prima facie proof with regard to any theft having taken place in the plaintiff Mutt and any valuables having been stolen at the relevant point of time. Since no prima facie proof is forthcoming and as there is cross-examination of all the witnesses including the evidence of the defendant, the Trial Court is justified in passing the impugned order. I do not find any reasonable opportunity having been denied by the Trial Court to the defendant in the matter of either cross-examination of plaintiff''s witnesses or in leading defendant''s evidence. In the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be termed as one passed by acting with material irregularity.

In the result, writ petitions fail and stand rejected. However, the Trial Court shall decide the suit uninfluenced by the view taken on I.As. 37 and 38.