IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.Nos.9606 & 9691 – 9692/2017 (GM – CPC) BETWEEN :
SRI D.PUTTASWAMY S/O DASAPPA, AGE:57 YEARS R/O SHIRIYUR VEERAPURA VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577 201 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI K.MANJUNATHA RAO BHONSLE, ADV.) AND :
1. SRI SUBBA RAO S/O SHANKAR RAO AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 2. SRI MEGHOJI RAO S/O SHANKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT KANCHIBAGILU, OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI-577 201 3. SRI SEETHARAMA S/O KALYANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT H.NO.9/91, PAPER TOWN, BHADRAVTHI-577 203 4. SRI K.MUKUNDA S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 5. SRI K.VENKATESH S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 6. SMT.JAYALAKSHMI W/O K.VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 7. SRI K.SHEKAR S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESPONDENT Nos.4 TO 7 ARE R/AT KANCHIBAGILU OLD TOWN, TALUK OFFICE ROAD, BHADRAVATHI-577 201 8. M/s JAVAHARALAL NEHRU EDUCATION CHARITABLE TRUST, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI-577 201 BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SRI S.L.LAKSHMANA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.S.VENKATESH, ADV. FOR R-8; R-1, R-2, R-4 & R-6 ARE SERVED;
R-3, R-5 & R-7 SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO EXCERCISE ITS WRIT JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.193/2009 VIDE ANNEX-L ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE COURT, BHADRAVATI AND FURTHER PLEASED TO ALLOW THE I.A.S' FILED UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 UNDER SECTION 151 AND ORDER VII RULE 14[3] R/W 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 RESPECTIVELY.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.02.2017 passed on I.A.Nos.21 to 23 filed under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, under Section 151 of CPC and under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of CPC respectively in O.S.No.193/2009 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge, Bhadravathi, whereby the said applications have been rejected.
3. The petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.193/2009 before the Trial Court seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.
4. In the said proceedings, after concluding the evidence of both sides, the petitioner has filed I.A.Nos.21 to 23 for re-opening the case and sought permission to lead further evidence recalling the witness, PW-1 and for production of additional documents. It was objected by the respondents/defendants 4 to 10.
5. The Trial Court rejected the said applications.
Hence, these petitions.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner was oblivious of the documents, viz., intimation issued by the Commissioner, Town Planning Authority, Shivamogga, dated 22.04.2015 and the endorsement issued by the Town Planning Authority, Shivamogga, dated 29.9.2015. It is only after receiving the said documents, applications I.A.Nos.21 to 23 were filed. These documents are necessary for the effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties and there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner in moving before the Trial Court to place on record the said documents to be marked as exhibits. However, the Trial Court without appreciating the same, rejected the applications.
7. Learned counsel Sri.T.S.Venkatesh for the respondents would submit that the order dated 22.4.2015 was within the knowledge of the petitioner as back as on 05.05.2015. After the conclusion of the evidence by both the parties, the matter is listed for arguments, the petitioner has come up with these applications with an intent to protract the matter. Hence, considering the same, the Trial Court rejected the said applications which do not call for any interference by this court.
8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
9. The epicenter of the dispute is the sale deed dated 17.10.2008 said to have been executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 and the sale deed dated 24.11.2008 executed by defendant Nos.4 to 9 in favour of defendant No.10. The documents which is now sought to be produced, the intimation letter dated 22.04.2015 relates to the development of plot in Sy.No.33/3 and the same appears to be with the petitioner from 05.05.2015.
10. The arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents being that the said documents are not relevant to decide the lis between the parties, no satisfactory explanation is offered by the petitioner for not producing the said documents, that too the endorsement being received by the petitioner on 29.09.2015. Filing applications at the fag end of the proceedings, i.e., when the matter is listed for final arguments could not be appreciated. The Trial Court rightly rejected the same observing that the intention of the petitioner is nothing but procrastination of the matter and the said documents are not relevant for deciding the dispute between the parties.
11. The reasoning recorded by the Trial Court cannot be held to be unjustifiable or perverse. No jurisdictional error found in the order impugned to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Writ petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: