IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.59943-59945/2014 (GM – CPC) BETWEEN:
1. THIMMAIAH @ SANNA THIMMAIAH @ MUDLI S/O THIMMAIAH @ MUDLIGIRIYAIAH, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS L.RS., a) LAKSHMAMMA, W/O THIMMAIAH @ MUDLIGIRIYAIAH @ MUDLI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSING BOARD COLONY, HOLENARASIPURA ROAD, CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN & TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.
b) GIRISH KUMAR C T., S/O THIMMAIAH @ MUDLIGIRIYAIAH @ MUDLI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSING BOARD COLONY, HOLENARASIPURA ROAD, CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN & TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.
c) NAGARAJU C T S/O THIMMAIAH @ MUDLIGIRIYAIAH @ MUDLI, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS (1) JAYAMMA W/O LATE NAGARAJU C T AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, (2) SOUJANYA D/O LATE NAGARAJU C T AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, (3) SARASWATHI D/O LATE NAGARAJU C T AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, ALL THE ABOVE c(1) TO c(3) ARE RESIDING AT A K COLONY, OPP. TO KSRTC BUS STAND, CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN & TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT d) CHANDRASHEKAR S/O THIMMAIAH @ MUDLIGIRIYAIAH @ MUDLI, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS (1) JAYAMMA W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, (2) SANDEEP S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, (3) SWETHA D/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, ALL THE ABOVE d(1) TO (3) ARE R/AT A K COLONY, OPP. TO KSRTC BUS STAND, CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN & TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.
e) YASHODA C T W/O DASEGOWDA, D/O THIMMAIAH @ MUDLIGIRIYAIAH @ MUDLI. RESIDING AT PWD QUARTERS, HASSAN.
f) PRAMEELA C T W/O BORAIAH, D/O THIMMAIAH @ MUDLIGIRIYAIAH @ MUDLI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT MATTIKERE, BANGALORE.
g) NAGARATHNA C T W/O SURENDRAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT YELAHANKA, BANGALORE.
h) JAYASHRI C T W/O SATEESHA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSING BOARD COLONY, HOLENARASIPURA ROAD, CHANNARAYAPATNA.
… PETITIONERS (BY SRI.GANGADHARAIAH A.N., ADV., (ABSENT)) AND:
1. ANUSUYA W/O GOPALA KRISHNA C K AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 2. GOPALAKRISHNA C T DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF TOWN MUNICIPALITY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT GAYATRI LAYOUT, NEAR RAGHAVENDRA SAW MILL, CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN AND TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.
3. CHIEF OFFICER CHANNNARAYAPATANA TOWN MUNICIPALITY, CHANNARAYAPATNA.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADV., FOR R1 AND R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 04.09.2015 HAND SUMMONS SERVED ON R3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE – J DATED 31.10.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.62/2005 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATNA.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER None for the petitioners.
Sri. Pruthvi Wodeyar, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 31/10/2013 passed by the trial Court by which, the application filed by the petitioners under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the C.P.C. has been rejected.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for respondents and perused the records.
5. From the perusal of the records, it is evident that P.W.1 filed his examination-in-chief in the form of an affidavit on 17/06/2008. Thereafter, he was cross- examined and after lapse of more than 5 years, petitioners filed an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of C.P.C, seeking permission to produce certain documents and to re-examine the plaintiffs’ witness. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the petitioners have filed an application for consideration of documents after an inordinate delay of 5 years.
6. When matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit was instituted on 10/03/2005 and no interim order has been passed in these writ petitions. Though the proceedings before the trial Court was fixed for arguments, the petitioners are seeking adjournment on the ground that the matter is pending before this Court.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the records.
8. Admittedly, P.W.1 was examined and cross- examined on 17/06/2008 and after an inordinate delay of 5 years, an application for production of documents was filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of C.P.C, which has rightly been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the power to re-examine a witness is discretionary in nature and the plaintiffs were under obligation to file the documents at the earliest point of time. The order passed by the trial Court neither suffers from jurisdictional infirmity nor an error apparent on the face of record. The impugned order does not call for any interference in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
9. In the result, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions. The same are hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Msu