IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.7947/2019 & WRIT PETITION No.9068/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
M.G.HARIBABU S/O G.GOVINDARAJULU NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.891/5, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 14TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 086.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAGHU PRASAD B S, ADV.,) AND:
S.MANJUNATH S/O LATE K.SRIRAMULU NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.14/2, 4TH MAIN ROAD, MARUTHI EXTENSION, SRIRAMPURAM, BENGALURU-560 021.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.R.CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY, ADV.,) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON 29.01.2019 ON IA-3 AND IA-4 IN O.S.7482/2017 BY THE II ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL JUDGE, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-J TO THE WRIT PETITIONS AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY COST OF THE PETITION.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The defendant filed the present writ petitions against the order dated 29.01.2019 allowing I.A.No.3 filed under Order 18 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to recall P.W.1 to enable the plaintiff to lead his further evidence and I.A.No.4 filed under Order 7 Rule 14-A r/w Section 151 of CPC to produce the documents in O.S.No.7482/2017 on the file of II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
2. The respondent who is the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance to enforce the agreement dated 26.12.2014 by raising various contentions. The defendant filed the written statement denying the plaint averments and sought for dismissal of the suit.
3. After completion of evidence of P.W.1, the plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.3 and 4 under Order 18 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC and Order 7 Rule 14-A r/w Section 151 of CPC to recall P.W.1 to enable the plaintiff to lead his further evidence and to permit the plaintiff to produce the documents. The learned trial Judge allowed the said applications. Hence, the present writ petitions are filed by the defendant.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri Raghu Prasad B.S., learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court allowing the applications filed by the plaintiff is not a speaking order and no reasons are assigned. Hence, the same are liable to be quashed. He further contended that, though objections were filed, the trial Court proceeded to allow the applications without permitting the defendant to argue on the applications, which is in violation of principles of nature justice. He further contended that though, the order sheet depicts that the applications were allowed on cost of Rs.200/- each received by the petitioner/defendant, it was compelled by the learned trial Judge to receive the said amount. He further contended that subsequently the defendant also filed an application on 21.03.2019 for permission to the defendant to re-deposit the cost received by the counsel for allowing I.A.Nos.3 and 4. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petitions.
6. Sri K.R.Chandrashekara Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that though objections were filed by the defendant to the said applications and also having received the cost for allowing the applications, the counsel for the defendant ought to have requested the Court to argue the matter. The present writ petitions are nothing, but an allegation against the learned trial Judge, which should not be encouraged and it is only an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, he sought to dismiss these writ petitions.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance to enforce the agreement dated 26.12.2014. It is also not in dispute that I.A.Nos.3 and 4 were filed on 07.12.2018 for recalling PW.1 and for production of documents. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge reads as under:
“Perused I.As., affidavit filed in support of I.As., and objections. For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.Nos.3 and 4, I.A.Nos.3 and 4 are allowed on cost of Rs.200/- each. Accordingly, P.W.1 is recalled and plaintiff is permitted to produce the document and same are taken on record subject to proof and relevancy”.
The aforementioned order sheet does not depict that there was a request made by learned counsel for the defendant to provide an opportunity to argue on the applications.
8. The courts are running mainly on the basis of trust between the litigants, lawyers and the Presiding Officers. The present writ petitions are nothing, but an allegation made against the learned trial Judge, which should not be encouraged. But, at the same time, the fact that there was no opportunity to the counsel for the defendant to argue on the applications as stated in the order sheet, which cannot be denied.
9. Without adverting the contentions urged by the learned counsel for petitioner and the respondent, in the interest of justice, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is appropriate to permit the defendant to argue the applications. The trial Court shall re-consider the applications after giving an opportunity to both the parties and pass appropriate orders on merit of the applications in accordance with law on the next date of hearing i.e., on 09.04.2019 or any date to be fixed by the learned Judge. The petitioner/defendant is directed to return the amount of cost received on the next date of hearing. Insofar as application filed by the petitioner/defendant is concerned, it is for the learned trial Judge to consider the said application and ultimately if it is found offensive, the learned Judge can take appropriate action against the counsel in accordance with law.
10. Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of.
The impugned order dated 29.01.2019 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court for re-consideration of I.A.Nos.3 and 4 afresh in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE PB