IL ThE FiGi CCURT CF KARMT4KA aT AGLCRE DATE) TTh 1ST 31 F APRIL 1998 BEFORE TTE VCW’BLE YR. UTICL Na34ya CIVIL RE7ISIGL PEflTIC! NO.942/1998 Jasannath s/o Uoflrrpa Si-et, - W3jo” 0cc: Retir1 Government Servant, R/o Yarkwad, Tq:Fliyal, Dlst:U,K. S ,,PflTI0flR (By Sr1R. BDes’pnde, Ady, eor netr,’ vs — Naparrohan, s/o Lanjund Shetty, Davanagere, Major, Ccc: AgrIculturIst, R/o irkavada vii age, Tq:Haliyal, DIst:Uttara Kannada, .. .RSP. Ilk’ Civil Raqision Petition is filed u/s llF of CPC aratnst the order dated 31-rL98 * .2. -2- passed in O.S,!. 6/1996 on the file of the Civil Judge, (Jr,Dn.) Halyal. This Civil Revision Petition coming on for V?YISS1ON this day, the court made the following: - ORDER Notice is dispensed with in view of th trivial matter involved, 2, The trial Court has rejected I,aJCVl filed by the defendants counsel uer Order 18 rule I7R CPC reuest1ng the trial Court to recall PW I to 3 for citss examination SomØe readons were assigned by th.e defendant for t cross evamining the witnesses, The trial Court has dismissed the said application on the ground that the defendant was not diligent’ in pseating the sawe, Titugh he s present before the Court, he did not pray or time to cross examIne the witnesses etc, • • 3. • 1 1’ • • 3 .. 3. This order is made in a suit filed in the year 1996. The trial Court should aercise its discretion in mach matters without prejudice to the parties. It has unnecessarily driven the party to come to the High Court. Therefore, this is not a case tee the court has exercised its:; discretion property. Revision is, therefore, allowed. The defeni9nt is pertitted to cross examias PW 4 1 to 3 on payment of a cost of2t/aa 34/a JUDGE T.B!:BY asa R.BY: &.L Copy (3-,’--- c Aeist2r.t P:st.;;” 9 ugh Court of rant .aka •a. / , _Bana1ore—b6O 001 S