IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO.52868/2018 AND WRIT PETITION NO.4217/2019 (GM - CPC) BETWEEN:
1. MR. JOSE J. PINAKATT S/O. LATE JOHN PINAKATTA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, DOOR NO.23-13/1309/2 SHILPI HARDWARE SIDE CROSS ROAD, NEAR 1ST RAILWAY BRIDGE, MARANAMIKATTA, PANDESHWARA POST, MANGALORE – 575 001.
2. MR. FRANCIES BERNARD S/O. LATE JULIAN BERNARD, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, N.R. PURA TOWN – 577 134. CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs.
2(a) MRS. CORAL BERNARD W/O. FRANCIS BERNARD, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE.
2(b) DONOVAN BERNARD S/O. FRANCIS BERNARD, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, NO.2(a) & 2(b) ARE RESIIDNG AT #1/297, BENARD BUNGALOW PARADE ROAD, FORT KOCHI, KERALA STATE.
2(c) MRS. GAIL MONICA FERNANDEZ D/O. FRANCIS BERNARD, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.1507, KHALADIA TOWER, CORNICH ROAD, P.O. NO.94818 ABUDHABI.
3. MR. SUNNY J. PINAKATT S/O LATE JOHN PINAKATTA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, DOOR NO.23-13-1309/2, SHILPI HARDWARE SIDE CROSS ROAD, NEAR 1ST RAILWAY BRIDGE, MARNAMIKATTA, PANDESHWARA POST, MANGALORE – 575 001. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI DAYALU K.N., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. SUFIYA SHAMIR W/O. SHAIKH SHAMIR, MAJOR, TIMBER MERCHANT, SMALL MOSQUE STREET, TARIKERE TOWN – 577 128.
2. MR. MOHAMMED ISMAIL SHEREEF S/O. LATE SHEIK SHAMIR, MAJOR, ICICI BANK, M.H. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.
3. MR. MOHAMMED YUSUF SHAREEF S/O. LATE SHEIK SHAMIR, MAJOR, TIMBER MERCHANT, SMALL MOSQUE STREET, TARIKERE TOWN, TARIKERE – 577 128.
4. MR. MOHAMMED YUNUS SHAREEF S/O. LATE SHEIK SHAMIR, MAJOR, TIMBER MERCHANT, SMALL MOSQUE STREET, TARIKERE TOWN, TARIKERE – 577 128.
5. MRS. ARSHIYA TAMEEM D/O. LATE SHEIKH SHAMIR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, SMALL MOSQUE STREET, TARIKERE TOWN, TARIKERE – 577 128.
6. MRS. SUMAYA SUBREEN D/O. LATE SHEIKH SHAMIR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, SMALL MOSQUE STREET, TARIKERE TOWN, TARIKERE – 577 128.
7. SMT. ANNAMMA .P.J D/O. JAISON .C.F AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT #102, D.NO.22-3-590/3, 1ST FLOOR, NEAR JAPPU GUJJARA LAKE, MANGALORE- 575 001. ... RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, IN O.S.NO.01/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARASIMHARAJAPURA (N.R.PURA) AND SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED 29.10.2018, PASSED ON I.A.NO.65 & I.A.NO.66, IN O.S.NO.01/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARASIMHARAJAPURA, I.E., ANNEXURE-J BY ALLOWING I.A.NO.65 & I.A.NO.66.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioners have challenged the order dated 29/10/2018, passed on I.A.Nos.65 and 66 in O.S.No.1/2017 (Old No.38/2003), on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narasimharajapura, whereby the said applications have been dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/- each.
2. It is the contention of the petitioners that the documents proposed to be placed on record were obtained from the authorized department, which are relevant for the adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The trial Court has not appreciated the same and dismissed the applications without assigning proper reasons.
3. The said arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be countenanced in view of the reasons assigned by the trial Court to arrive at a decision for rejecting the applications I.A.Nos.65 and 66 in paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the impugned order. It is pertinent to note that the suit in O.S.No.1/2017 (old number O.S.38/2003) was filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners on 29/08/2003, which came to be transferred on 27/11/2017 to the trial Court and in the said proceedings interlocutory applications were filed for reopening the case successively. The contention of the petitioners that the documents are obtained of late and accordingly it requires to be considered has to be negated for the reason that the plaintiffs/petitioners were aware of the documents and it is at the fag end of the proceedings, the said applications are filed to reopen the case and to recall PW.1 as well as to produce the documents.
4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gayathri vs. M.Girish [(2016) 14 SCC 142] has categorically observed that the Courts cannot reopen the case merely on the repetitive and successive applications filed by the parties to protract the proceedings. The case on hand squarely comes within the ambit of the said judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, what can be inferred from the material on record is that these applications are filed by the petitioners in order to procrastinate the adjudication. It is apparent that since O.S.No.38/2003 is pending from the year 2003, filing of such frivolous interlocutory applications requires to be discouraged. Hence, writ petitions stands dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/- JUDGE S*