IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO.9690/2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI B NARASIMHA PAI AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LATE B.VAMANPAI R/AT BEHIND JUNIOR COLLEGE KUNDAPURA KASABA AND TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI B PANDURANGA PAI S/O LATE B.RAMARAYA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, 810, 10TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, OPP: CORPORATION BANK A.T.M. 7TH PHASE, J.P.NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 078.
... RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ANNEXURE-A DATED 16.11.2016 MADE ON I.A. II IN R.A.30/2013 BY THE COURT OF SR. CIVIL JUDGE, KUNDAPURA.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner filed a suit for damages against respondent/defendant claiming damages at Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of suit till payment alleging that defendant has been communicating with the family members by writing letters and trying to tarnish the image of plaintiff as well as father of plaintiff. Said suit after contest came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 28.09.2012.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff in R.A.No.30/2013 and when the matter was at the stage of arguments an interlocutory application namely, I.A.No.2 came to be filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking leave of the court to adduce additional evidence by permitting the appellant to examine two witnesses contending interalia that trial Court had dismissed the suit only on the ground that plaintiff had not examined the other members of family or the persons who had received the purported communication, which was defamatory in nature.
4. The lower appellate court after considering the material documents available on record and the fact that dismissal of suit was not only on the said ground but also on the other grounds had held that permitting the examination of witnesses after 7 years would not serve any fruitful purpose and also on the ground that the criteria prescribed under Rule 27(1)(a)(aa)(b) of Order 41 CPC has not been satisfied and as such it has rejected the said application.
5. There is no error committed by the appellate Court calling for interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, writ petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE DR