IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.33465 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
MRS. GEETHABALI W/O SRI. T. MURALIKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT. No.108, 5TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN 1ST BLOCK, J.P. NAGAR, 8TH PHASE HARI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560062.
(BY SRI. RAJESH K.S. ADVOCATE) AND:
KIRAN .G S/O GOPALAPPA R/AT. No.5/10, 16TH CROSS 7TH MAIN, RAMASWAMY LAYOUT LAKKASANDRA BENGALURU-560039.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.7.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-C BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND BY DIRECTING THE COURT TO ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS FILED ON DTD:15.7.2019 OF THIS PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B BY ISSUING A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND THE RESPONDENT TO BE DIRECTED & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner, being the defendant in a specific performance suit in O.S.No.8927/2013, is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 22.07.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-C, whereby his two applications i.e., the application in I.A.No.14 filed under Section 151 for reopening the case for leading further evidence and the other application in I.A.No.15 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908 for recalling the order dated 27.11.2018 leading further evidence, have been rejected.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition papers, no case is made out for granting indulgence inasmuch as both the applications regardless of the prayers made therein, are structured on the ground that with the subject documents being not duly stamped were inadmissible in evidence and therefore, regardless of absence of objections at the time of their getting marked in evidence, the issue needs to be re-examined.
3. This Court is afraid that the contention, which is traded here does not constitute a sufficient ground for granting indulgence in the matter. It is the consistent view of the Apex Court and this Court that once the documents are produced and marked in evidence sans objection at the time of recording the evidence, the question as to dutiability of such documents cannot be raised at the subsequent stages of the same proceedings.
The decision cited at the bar in ILR 2010 KAR 3280 does not support the contention now advanced by the petitioner side to the contrary of the above since the fact matrix of that case and of this writ petition are poles asunder.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition being devoid of merits is rejected in limine.
All other contentions of the parties are kept open.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-