IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH , 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.11520/2019 & WRIT PETITION Nos.11699-11700/2019(GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SMT. G. V. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O G. R. SRINIVASA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT GOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHILAKALANERPU HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562135.
REP. BY THE GPA HOLDER SHRI G. R. SRINIVASA REDDY, ... PETITIONER (BY SMT. GOWHAR UNNISA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI VISWANATHA SETTY V., ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT. T. R. VINUTHA, D/O T. N. SUDHAMANI & LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT ANJANI EXTENSION CHINTAMANI TOWN & TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562135 ... RESPONDENT **** THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 2.2.2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, CHINTAMANI IN O.S.NO.57/2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-E IN RESPECT OF IA NO.20 TO 22.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner - plaintiff filed these writ petitions against the order dated 2.2.2019 on I.A. Nos.20 to 22 in O.S. No.57/2010 dismissing the applications filed by the plaintiff with costs of Rs.500/-.
2. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance to enforce the agreement of sale dated 10.4.2008 said to have been entered between the plaintiff and the defendant and to direct the defendant to execute proper and valid registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the balance consideration amount, contending that the defendant who is the absolute owner of the property in question executed an ‘agreement of sale’ in favour of the plaintiff on 10.4.2008 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for a valuable consideration of Rs.11,95,000/- and received Rs.2,00,000/- by cash towards part performance of the agreement. Inspite of the repeated demands, the defendant has not executed the sale deed. Therefore the suit came to be filed.
3. The defendant filed the written statement and denied the plaint averments and contended that the plaintiff relatives are the adjoining neighbours of defendant mother and there were cordial terms between the plaintiff and defendant’s mother. There was necessity of funds to the defendant for education purpose. The defendant’s mother approached the plaintiff for hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- in the 2nd week of March 2008. However, at the time of payment of hand loan, the plaintiff insisted the signatures of the defendant and her mother on unfilled stamp papers for security purpose. The defendant never executed an agreement of sale as alleged. The agreement is created and sought for dismissal of the suit.
4. After completion of the evidence, when the matter was posted for arguments, the present applications came to be filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order 7 Rule 14(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure to re-open, recall and permit the plaintiff to adduce further evidence. The said applications came to be resisted by the defendant. The trial Court considering the applications and the objections by the impugned order dismissed the applications. Hence the present writ petitions are filed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Smt. Gowhar Unnisa, learned counsel for the petitioner – plaintiff contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court dismissing the applications filed by the plaintiff is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. She would further contend that the trial Court failed to notice that in view of the subsequent developments taken place in the matter with regard to title of the property, the property was already sold by defendant’s mother in favour of one G. Narayana Reddy. The petitioner did not had all the details with her at the time of adducing further evidence and subsequently the petitioner has collected the details pertaining to O.S. NO.328/2008 and R.A. No.10/2019 filed by the respondent’s mother and filed the applications. In view of the above, the trial Court ought to have given opportunity to the petitioner – plaintiff to adduce further evidence in order to resolve the dispute between the parties. She further submitted that mere allowing the applications will not prejudice the case of the other side and the trial Court ought not to have rejected the applications. Therefore she sought to allow the writ petitions.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner – plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance to enforce the agreement on the ground that the defendant executed the said agreement. The defendant denied the same and filed the written statement and contended that the agreement is created document and she never executed any agreement.
8. The trial Court recorded a finding that the material on record clearly depicts that the suit is filed in the year 2010 and cross-examination of DW.1 was closed on 3.11.2017 itself and when the matter was posted for reply arguments, at that stage, the similar applications came to be filed by the plaintiff on 7.4.2018. The said applications were allowed as the counsel for the defendant submitted no objection to allow the applications with costs. Thereafter, even though PW.1 is recalled, the plaintiff’s counsel once again filed I.A. No.19 under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the same was also allowed by the trial Court with costs. Thereafter, when the matter was posted for further arguments, at that stage, the plaintiff has filed three applications. The filing of applications at the belated stage by the plaintiff appears to be only to protract the proceedings. There is no reason assigned in the affidavit as to why the plaintiff could not produce the documents along with her earlier applications filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even after according sufficient opportunity, the plaintiff has not produced the documents at the earlier stage. The act and attitude of the plaintiff and her PA holder has to be restricted by the Court by dismissing the applications. Accordingly the applications came to be rejected.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gayathri vs. M. Girish reported in AIR 2016 SC 3559 considering the provisions of Order 17 Rule 1 held at paragraphs 10, 13 and 14 as under:
10. In the case at hand, as we have stated hereinbefore, the examination-in-chief continued for long and the matter was adjourned seven times. The defendant sought adjournment after adjournment for cross-examination on some pretext or the other which are really not entertainable in law. But the trial court eventually granted permission subject to payment of costs. Regardless of the allowance extended, the defendant stood embedded on his adamantine platform and prayed for adjournment as if it was his right to seek adjournment on any ground whatsoever and on any circumstance. The non- concern of the petitioner-defendant shown towards the proceedings of the court is absolutely manifest. The disregard shown to the plaintiff's age is also visible from the marathon of interlocutory applications filed. A counsel appearing for a litigant has to have institutional responsibility. The Code of Civil Procedure so command. Applications are not to be filed on the grounds which we have referred to hereinabove and that too in such a brazen and obtrusive manner. It is wholly reprehensible. The law does not countenance it and, if we permit ourselves to say so, the professional ethics decries such practice. It is because such acts are against the majesty of law.
13. In the case at hand, it can indubitably be stated that the petitioner-defendant has acted in a manner to cause colossal insult to justice and to the concept of speedy disposal of civil litigation. We are constrained to say the virus of seeking adjournment has to be controlled. The saying of Gita “Awake! Arise! Oh Partha” is apt here to be stated for guidance of the trial courts.
14. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we decline to entertain the special leave petition and dismiss it with costs which is assessed at Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only). The costs shall be paid to the State Legal Services Authority, Karnataka. The said amount shall be deposited before the trial court within eight weeks hence, which shall do the needful to transfer it to the State Legal Services Authority. If the amount is not deposited, the right of defence to examine its witnesses shall stand foreclosed.
10. In view of the above, the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The reasons assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court are just and proper.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.
Gss/-
Sd/-
JUDGE