IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 40576 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NOS. 40575 OF 2017, 38615 OF 2017 IN W.P. NO. 40576/2017:
BETWEEN:
CHERIAN ARUMANA PAUL S/O PAUL CHERIAN, AGED 65 YEARS, MANGALATH HOUSE, MUMMYS COLONY, KAVADIYAR, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, KERALA – 682 001.
ALSO AT:NO.34/1, K NARAYANAPURA CROSS, HENNUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-77.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI. NIKHILESH RAO M, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. JOVI MANU MATHEW S/O LATE JOHN MATHEW AGED 45 YEARS, TN D10, VAZATHKADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM KERALA 2. SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED 75 YEARS, R/A THATTAHALLI VILLAGE KURLAHALLI, MAJIRA SOMENAHALLI HOBLI GUDIBANDE TALUK – 561 207. (R-2 SINCE DECEASED AND REPRESENTED BY HER LRS R3,4 &5 WHO ARE ON RECORD AMENDED V.C.O. DATED 18.11.2019) 3. SMT GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 4. SMT LAKSHMI DEVAMMA, W/O VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 5. SMT ASHWATHAMMA, W/O SRINIVAS, R2 TO R5 ARE R/A NAREMADDANEHALLI, PATHA PALYA HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK -561 207.
6. SMT A A MAHALAKSHMI W/O LATE SOMASHEKAR N S, AGED 62 YEARS, NO.37, ANDANAPPA GULLY, AVENUE ROAD, BANGALORE-02.
7. SRI KONDAPPA S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED 48 YEARS, 8. SMT SHANTHAMMA, D/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED 46 YEARS, 9. SRI VENKATARAMANAPPA, S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED 44 YEARS, 10. SMT GANGARATHNAMMA, D/O N V VENKATARAMANA, AGED 36 YEARS, 11. SMT DEEPA, D/O N V VENKATARAMANA, AGED 34 YEARS, 12. SRI GANGARAJU, S/O N V VENKATARAMANA, AGED 36 YEARS, 13. SMT JYOTHI, D/O SRINIVAS, AGED 38 YEARS, 14. SRI ASHOK, S/O SRINIVAS, AGED 36 YEARS, 15. SRI MAHESH S/O SRINIVAS, AGED 26 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS. 7 TO 15, R/A NAREMADDENAHALLI, PATHAPALYA HOBLI, BAGEPALI TALUK – 561 207.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KAVITHA B M, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO 5 & R7 TO 15; MS. SANGEETHA MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. K K THAYAMMA, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.08.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), GUDIBANDE IN O.S. 116/09 AT ANNEX-A ON I.A.26 AND THEREBY ALLOW THE I.A.26 AND REOPEN THE CASE AND POST THE MATTER FOR FURTHER PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE.
IN W.P. NO. 40575/2017:
BETWEEN:
CHERIAN ARUMANA PAUL S/O PAUL CHERIAN, AGED 65 YEARS, MANGALATH HOUSE, MUMMYS COLONY, KAVADIYAR, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, KERALA – 682 001.
ALSO AT:NO.34/1, K NARAYANAPURA CROSS, HENNUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-77.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI. NIKHILESH RAO M, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. JOVI MANU MATHEW, S/O LATE JOHN MATHEW, AGED 45 YEARS, TN D10, VAZATHKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA.
2. SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED 75 YEARS, R/A THATTAHALLI VILLAGE KURLAHALLI, MAJIRA SOMENAHALLI HOBLI GUDIBANDE TALUK – 561 207. (R-2 SINCE DECEASED AND REPRESENTED BY HER LRS R3,4 &5 WHO ARE ON RECORD AMENDED V.C.O. DATED 18.11.2019) 3. SMT GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 4. SMT LAKSHMI DEVAMMA, W/O VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 5. SMT ASHWATHAMMA, W/O SRINIVAS, R2 TO R5 ARE R/A NAREMADDANEHALLI, PATHA PALYA HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK -561 207.
6. SMT A A MAHALAKSHMI W/O LATE SOMASHEKAR N S, AGED 62 YEARS, NO.37, ANDANAPPA GULLY, AVENUE ROAD, BANGALORE-02.
7. SRI KONDAPPA S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED 48 YEARS, 8. SMT SHANTHAMMA, D/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED 46 YEARS, 9. SRI VENKATARAMANAPPA, S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED 44 YEARS, 10. SMT GANGARATHNAMMA, D/O N V VENKATARAMANA, AGED 36 YEARS, 11. SMT DEEPA, D/O N V VENKATARAMANA, AGED 34 YEARS, 12. SRI GANGARAJU, S/O N V VENKATARAMANA, AGED 36 YEARS, 13. SMT JYOTHI, D/O SRINIVAS, AGED 38 YEARS, 14. SRI ASHOK, S/O SRINIVAS, AGED 36 YEARS, 15. SRI MAHESH S/O SRINIVAS, AGED 26 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS. 7 TO 15, R/A NAREMADDENAHALLI, PATHAPALYA HOBLI, BAGEPALI TALUK – 561 207.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KAVITHA B M, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO 5 & R7 TO 15; MS. SANGEETHA MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. K K THAYAMMA, ADVOCATE FOR R6; R1 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.08.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), GUDIBANDE IN O.S. 116/069 AT (ANNEXURE-A) ON I.A.25 AND THEREBY ALLOW THE I.A.25 AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS MENTIONED THEREIN.
IN W.P. NO. 38615/2017:
BETWEEN:
CHERIAN ARUMANA PAUL S/O PAUL CHERIAN, AGED 65 YEARS, MANGALATH HOUSE, MUMMYS COLONY, KAVADIYAR, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, KERALA – 682 001.
ALSO AT:NO.34/1, K NARAYANAPURA CROSS, HENNUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-77.
(BY SRI. NIKHILESH RAO M, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. JOVI MANU MATHEW S/O LATE JOHN MATHEW AGED 45 YEARS, TN D10, VAZATHKADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM KERALA 2. SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED 75 YEARS, R/A THATTAHALLI VILLAGE KURLAHALLI, MAJIRA SOMENAHALLI HOBLI GUDIBANDE TALUK – 561 207. (R-2 SINCE DECEASED AND REPRESENTED BY HER LRS R3,4 &5 WHO ARE ON RECORD AMENDED V.C.O. DATED 18.11.2019) 3. SMT GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 4. SMT LAKSHMI DEVAMMA, W/O VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 5. SMT ASHWATHAMMA, W/O SRINIVAS, R2 TO R5 ARE R/A NAREMADDANEHALLI, PATHA PALYA HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK -561 207.
6. SMT A A MAHALAKSHMI W/O LATE SOMASHEKAR N S, AGED 62 YEARS, NO.37, ANDANAPPA GULLY, AVENUE ROAD, BANGALORE-02.
… PETITIONER 7. SRI KONDAPPA S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED 48 YEARS, 8. SMT SHANTHAMMA, D/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED 46 YEARS, 9. SRI VENKATARAMANAPPA, S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED 44 YEARS, 10. SMT GANGARATHNAMMA, D/O N V VENKATARAMANA, AGED 36 YEARS, 11. SMT DEEPA, D/O N V VENKATARAMANA, AGED 34 YEARS, 12. SRI GANGARAJU, S/O N V VENKATARAMANA, AGED 36 YEARS, 13. SMT JYOTHI, D/O SRINIVAS, AGED 38 YEARS, 14. SRI ASHOK, S/O SRINIVAS, AGED 36 YEARS, 15. SRI MAHESH S/O SRINIVAS, AGED 26 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS. 7 TO 15, R/A NAREMADDENAHALLI, PATHAPALYA HOBLI, BAGEPALI TALUK – 561 207.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KAVITHA B M, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO 5 & R7 TO 15; R1 SERVED & R2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.08.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), GUDIBANDE IN O.S. 116/09 AT (ANNEXURE- A) ON I.A.24 AND THEREBY ALLOW THE I.A.24 AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER LEAD FURTHER EVIDENCE.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner being the plaintiff in a declaration suit in O.S.No. 116/2009 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 21.08.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure- A, whereby his applications in IA Nos. 24, 25 & 26 respectively for reopening of the case for production of additional evidence and for further examination of his witnesses have been rejected by the learned trial Judge. After service of notice, the respondent-defendants having entered appearance through their counsel, resist the writ petitions.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of considered opinion that, reprieve needs to be granted to the petitioner for the following reasons:
(a) suit is one for declaration that a subject decree does not bind the plaintiffs; the suit has been resisted by filing the Written Statement; issues have been framed; the trial too has begun; plaintiffs’ evidence having been closed and the defendants’ having begun, the plaintiff had confronted the defendant’s witness with certain documents which the said witness denied;
(b) left with no option, the plaintiff finally resorted to filing of the subject application so that he can produce these documents subject to rule of relevance & admissibility; the learned trial judge could not have denied this opportunity of producing additional evidence; a contra stand would militate against the rules of justice & reason; and, (c) by allowing the subject applications, justice could have been done to both the parties, of course, subject to payment of cost & prescription of condition; this having not been done, there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record which warrants indulgence of Writ court to set the same right.
In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed; impugned orders have been set aside; subject applications having been favoured, petitioner is permitted to lead further evidence on the next date of hearing on paying a cost of Rs.10,000/- to respondent No.6 on or before the next date of hearing, failing which the orders now set at naught shall stand revived.
All the IAs pale into insignificance since the main matters are disposed off.
All other contentions of the parties are kept open.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv