IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR WRIT PETITION Nos.26374-26375 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) AND WRIT PETITION No.29638 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN 1. Sri. Ankashetty, S/o. Kempankashetty, Aged about 72 years, 2. Sri. Subbashetty, S/o. Kempankashetty, Aged about 69 years, Both are permanent resident of Uppara Beedi, Chamarajanagara Town-571313.
…Petitioners (By Sri. Halesha R.G., Advocate) AND 1. Sri. C.Rangaswamy, S/o. Late Kullamma, Aged about 72 years.
2. Sri. C.Siddaraju, S/o. Late Kullamma, Aged about 69 years, Both are permanent resident of 16th Ward, First Cross, Railway Layout, Chamarajanagara Town-571313.
…Respondents (By Sri. V.F.Kumbar, Advocate for R1 and R2) These Writ Petitions are filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for records, further set aside the order dated 31.05.2018 made on I.A.Nos.13 to 15 of 2018 in O.S.144/2012 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chamarajanagara at annexure-H and allow the I.A.Nos. 13 to 15 as prayed vide annexure-D, E and F.
These Writ Petitions coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER Heard the petitioners’ counsel and the respondents’ counsel.
2. Writ petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.144/2012 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chamarajanagara. At the stage when the suit was posted for further cross-examination of DW-1, the plaintiffs made three applications as per the I.A.13 to I.A.15 mainly for the purpose of leading further evidence from their side by producing some more documents. The trial court rejected these three applications giving reasons that the documents sought to be produced were very much available with the plaintiffs and they made these applications very belatedly. .
3. The evidence is being recorded in the suit. The plaintiffs evidence is over. It may be true that the said applications were filed when the suit was posted for further cross-examination of DW-1. There may be some delay on the part of the petitioners for production of these documents, but if according to the petitioners these documents help prove their case, the trial court could have received the documents and provided an opportunity to the petitioner to lead further evidence. It is stated that these documents were misplaced in the house and therefore this reason could have been considered by the trial court. Therefore in these circumstances I come to conclusion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The order of the trial court on I.A.13 to I.A.15 is set aside. The said applications are allowed and the petitioners are hereby directed to produce the documents and lead further evidence. However it is made clear that the plaintiffs can get these documents marked by leading further evidence only after completion of defendants’ evidence.
Sd/- JUDGE sd