: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.60845/2012 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN YALLAPPA S/O. BASAPPA KOCHARAGI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PANAGUTTI, TQ/DIST: BELGAUM. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.M.J.PEERJADE, ADVOCATE) AND 1. YALLAPPA KAREPPA KOCHARAGI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PANAGUTTI, TQ. & DIST: BELGAUM. 2. BASAPPA KAREPPA KOCHARAGI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PANAGUTTI, TQ. & DIST: BELGAUM. : 2 : 3. MALLAPPA HOLEPPA KOCHARAGI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PANAGUTTI, TQ. & DIST: BELGAUM. 4. KAREPPA HOLEPPA KOCHARAGI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PANAGUTTI, TQ. & DIST: BELGAUM. 5. BHIMAPPA LAGAMAPPA KOCHARAGI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, 5A. TANYEWWA D/O. BHIMAPPA KOCHARAGI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PANAGUTTI, TQ. & DIST: BELGAUM. 5B. NAGAPPA BHIMAPPA KOCHARAGI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PANAGUTTI, TQ. & DIST: BELGAUM. 5C. BASAPPA BHIMAPPA KOCHARAGI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PANAGUTTI, TQ. & DIST: BELGAUM. 5D. HOLEPPA BHIMAPPA KOCHARAGI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PANAGUTTI, TQ. & DIST: BELGAUM. 5E. HOLEPPA BHIMAPPA KOCHARAGI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PANAGUTTI, TQ. & DIST: BELGAUM. 6. NINGAPPA LAGAMAPPA KOCHARAGI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PANAGUTTI, TQ. & DIST: BELGAUM. : 3 : 7. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MARKANDEYA ALASHYA YOJANA HIDKAL DAM, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM. 8. BASAPPA YALLAPPA KOCHARAGI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PANAGUTTI, TQ. & DIST: BELGAUM. 9. SATTYAPPA YALLAPPA KOCHARAGI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PANAGUTTI, TQ. & DIST: BELGAUM. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.G.NAGANURI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4, R5A-D, R6. R7-SERVED. R5E, R8 & R9, PETITION DISMISSED.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2nd ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) COURT, BELGAUM, IN O.S.NO.255/2002 DATED 30/11/2011 AS PER ANNEXURE-D ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDERR 17 RULE 1 OC CPC RECORDING THE FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DW 1 AS NIL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., : 4 : THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R This is a 6 th plaintiff’s writ petition challenging the order passed by the trial Court, dismissing the application filed by him for adjournment of the case. 2. When the case was posted for further cross- examination of DW1, the learned counsel for the 6 th plaintiff filed an application for adjournment. The said application came to be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff is not diligent in prosecuting the matter and he has been taking adjournment after adjournments. The application does not constitute sufficient cause for giving adjournment. After dismissing the said application, the case was posted for arguments without filing the application to recall DW1. The order refusing adjournment is challenged in this writ petition. : 5 : 3. This Court has entertained the writ petition and stayed all further proceedings. What the 6 th plaintiff did not achieve in the Court below, he has been successful by filing this writ petition and getting all further proceedings stayed for more than three years. 4. This is how the civil litigation is suffering and for no fault of the Judges, the system is getting bad name. Everyone has contributed to this sorry state of affairs. In these circumstances, in order to do justice in respect of all these facts, I deem it proper to pass the following order: (i) This writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order refusing the adjournment is set aside and posting the case for arguments is also set aside. (iii) The defendant is directed to get DW1 present on the next date hearing date. (iv) The 6 th plaintiff shall pay first Rs.5,000/- towards cost to DW1. On such payment the : 6 : Court shall permit the 6 th plaintiff to cross- examine the DW1 on the very same day. If for any reason, the cross-examination is not completed, the case shall be adjourned to the every next date. If any further adjournment is sought for by either of the parties, then the trial Court shall conduct the proceedings as contemplated under proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 under Order XVII of C.P.C. and adjournment if granted shall be on payment of minimum cost of Rs.1,000/- per day. SD/- JUDGE Vnp*.