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 Nos.2827 – 2829/2019 (GM – CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SRI KRISHNAIAH G., S/O LATE GOVINDIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 2. SRI VENKATESHA S/O LATE GOVINDIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/O OBANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 123 3. SMT.LAKSHMI D/O LATE GOVINDIAH, AGED 46 YEARS, R/O AERO INDIA SHED, NO.181/C, ANDARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, PEENYA IIND STAGE, BANGALORE-58 ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI VISWANATH SABARAD, ADV.] AND:
1. SMT.MANGALAMMA D/O LATE PAPAIAH, AGED 50 YEARS.
2. SRI VENKATASHAMIAH S/O LATE PAPIAH, AGED 50 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/O OBANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 123 3. SRI M.K.ABDUL RASHEED S/O MULAMPARAMBAL ABDULLA, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O SUBHASHANAGARA, NELAMANGALA TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 123 4. SRI S.MANOHAR S/O HRISARVOTHAMA RAO, AGED 55 YEARS, NO.1063, SUBHASHANAGARA, NELAMANGALA TOWN, BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 123 5. SRI ANANDA SHETTY S/O MONAPPA SHETTY, AGED 63 YEARS, NO.28/2, 29/2, ORGANICS PLASTIC INDUSTRIES LTD., OBANAYAKARANJALLI, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 123 …RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.12.2018 PASSED ON IA-33 AND IA-34 AND IA NO.35 IN O.S.NO.88/1992 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, NELAMANGALA BANGALORE DISTRICT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.
THESE 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 17.12.2018 passed on I.A.Nos.33, 34 and 35 in O.S.No.88/1992 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC (‘Trial Court’ for short).
2. The petitioners have filed original suit No.88/1992 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. In the said proceedings, I.A.No.33 was filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC to recall DW.5 for cross-examination, I.A.No.34 was filed under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the case. I.A.No.35 has been filed under Order 16 Rule 6 read with Section 151 of CPC for production of documents. These applications have been rejected by the Trial Court. Hence, these writ petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Trial Court rejected the interlocutory applications without assigning valid reasons. The grant certificate issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner under Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 is necessary for the effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties. Similarly, the reopening of the case and further cross- examination of DW.5 is also necessary. However, the Trial Court erroneously dismissed the said application which calls for interference by this Court.
4. As could be seen from the material available on record, it is apparent that I.A.Nos.30 to 32 were filed by the petitioners to recall, reopen and to lead further evidence which were rejected by the Trial Court on 05.12.2018, wherein the grant made to the plaintiffs’ grandfather through the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition was referred to. It is recorded by the Trial Court that the valid reasons were assigned while dismissing the said I.A.Nos.30 to 32. It is discerned that the same reliefs are claimed by the petitioners in the pretext of filing of I.A.Nos.33 to 35 styled in a different manner. The documents that are sought to be summoned from the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition are not the relevant documents to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. As could be seen, these applications are filed by the petitioners having suffered an earlier order on I.ANos.30 to 32 only with an intention to protract the proceedings. No ground made out by the petitioners to interfere with the order impugned.
Accordingly, the writ petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR