IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.13372 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
G.K.KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT AMRUTHAHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI, SAHAKARNAGAR (POST), BENGALURU - 560 092. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.A.L. PREM KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. CHINNAMMA SINCE DECEASED REP BY LR 1(a) SRI. JAISHANKAR S/O THAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 2. SRI. THAYAPPA S/O SRI. SUBBARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT NO.176, ASHWATHEKATTE ROAD, AMRUTHAHALLY VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI, SAHAKARNAGAR (POST), BENGALURU - 560 092. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.K. SHIVARAM, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.5124/2010 PENDING BEFORE THE FILE OF XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-28) AT BENGALURU AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2019 PASSED BY XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-28) AT BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.5124/2010 AS PER ANNEXURE-J AS IMPROPER, AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 151 OF CPC (I.A.NO.15) FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner being a plaintiff in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.5124/2010 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 13.03.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure – J, whereby the learned XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru having rejected his application-I.A.No.15 has refused to permit him to lead further evidence by examining one additional/ local witness.
2. After service of notice, respondents/defendants having entered appearance through their counsel resist the writ petition contending that the petitioner has been abusing the process of Court and that he has been dragging on the proceedings with one or the other pretext, and therefore, no indulgence can be granted in the matter.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court grants indulgence in the matter because:
a) the reason assigned by the Court below for not favouring petitioner’s application-I.A.No.15 is not germane to the issue; ordinarily the litigants should have full opportunity to lead evidence, of course, subject to not abusing the process of Court, nor protracting the proceedings unjustifiably;
b) the Court below ought to have allowed the subject application on costs and conditions so that no prejudice would be caused to the other side and ought to have fixed a time limit for leading further evidence; this having not been done there is error apparent on the face of record warranting indulgence of writ Court.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is favoured; the impugned order is invalidated; petitioner’s application- I.A.No.15 filed under Section 151 of CPC, 1908 having been favoured, he is permitted to lead further evidence within fifteen days or on the next date of hearing whichever is later.
The petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the respondents within a period of two weeks, failing which the impugned order now quashed stands resurrected. All contentions of parties are kept open.
Sd/- JUDGE UN