IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH WRIT PETITION NOS.35644-35645/2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI N.PUNNIYA MURTHY S/O C.NAGARAJ AGED 52 YEARS KOTTHUR, OORGAUM POST K.G.F-563 121 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI J.G.CHANDRA MOHAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI G.S.PRASHANTH S/O SRI G.M.SUBRAMANYA SETTY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT NO.1476(76) 6TH CROSS ROAD ROBERTSONPET K.G.F–563 122 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI M.B.CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. JMFC, KGF, IN OS 319/2011, ON I.A.NO.VII UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC AND IA-VIII, UNDER ORDER XVI RULE 1, 2 AND 6 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC DATED 11.07.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE PETITION AND ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS VII AND VIII.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
1. These writ petitions by the defendant are directed against an interlocutory order dated 11.7.2017 passed by the trial court in the suit in O.S.No.319/2011 dismissing his application-I.A.No.7 filed to reopen the case to produce further evidence and the application-I.A.No.8 filed to issue summons to the Executive Engineer, BESCOM to produce all the documents pertaining to electricity meter No.RP 185/28-05-1998 and to give evidence.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order.
3. The trial court has rejected both the aforesaid applications with the following reasoning:
“11. When the case is posted for cross-examination of DW.1 finally, the present application is filed by the defendant to summon the Executive Engineer of BESCOM and produce all documents so as to prove that he has obtained power consumption from the BESCOM. As rightly pointed out by the plaintiff counsel, there is no litigation with respect to electricity connection or there is no claim either by plaintiff or defendant with respect to the electricity charges. When such being the case, I am of the opinion that there is no necessity for summoning the Executive Engineer of BESCOM. If at all the defendant really needs the same, he can obtain the certified copy of the same and produce it before this court. It is well laid principle of law that when situation is created to protract the proceedings, it for the court to curtail unscrupulous applications which are filed only with any intent to protract the proceedings. The suit is pending from 2011 and there is no dispute about the defendant taking electricity connection from BESCOM nor there is any claim with electricity connection. When such being this case, allowing the said application serves no purpose. As such, I am of the opinion that the present application deserves to be dismissed by imposing nominal cost ”
4. I find no error in the above reasoning of the trial court to warrant interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
5. As the suit is of the year 2011, the trial court shall take all necessary steps to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.
Petition dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE hkh.