IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.50165 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI. SAMPATH RAJ, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS, 1. SMT. SHANTHA DEVI, W/O LATE SAMPATH RAJ, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
2. SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, S/O LATE SAMATH RAJ, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
3. SMT. KIRAN KUMARI, W/O VIKAS KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
4. SRI. AMITH KUMAR, S/O LATE SAMATH RAJ, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT:
NO.303, 7TH MAIN, LAKKASANDRA, EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 030.
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR .S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. GOVINDA REDDY, S/O NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
2. SMT. MANJULAMMA, W/O GOVINDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, ... PETITIONERS BOTH ARE R/AT KUDLU VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 106.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.V.CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2019 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CCH-13 IN O.S.NO.3504 OF 2007 AND 3505 OF 2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-E REJECTING THE APPLICATIONS I.A.NO.16 TO 19 FILED BY THE PETITIOENRS U/S 151, ORDER 18 RULE 17, ORDER 7 RULE 14(3) AND ORDER 16 RULE 1 CPC RESPECTIVELY AND ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS I.A.NO.16 TO 19 BY ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners being the plaintiffs in an amended suit for declaration & possession in O.S.No.3505/2007 are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 17.09.2019, a copy where of is at Annexure-E, whereby the learned V Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, having rejected their four applications in I.A.Nos.16 to 19 has refused to re-open the case from the stage of arguments. The respondent-defendants having entered Caveat through their counsel oppose the writ petition.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court grants a limited reprieve to the petitioners for the following reasons:
a) ordinarily, the parties to the litigation should have full opportunity of participation in the proceedings and of meeting each others case by leading evidence both oral & documentary; however, in the guise of availing this opportunity, an unscrupulous litigant cannot be permitted to drag on the proceedings one way or the other is also true as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the Caveator banking upon the decision of the Apex Court in BAGAI CONSTRUCTION v/s GUPTA BUILDING MATERIAL STORE, (2013) 14 SCC 1; and, b) at times, new documents evidence are discovered and they will cast some light or shadow on the issues being debated; in such circumstances, when a plausible explanation is offered for delayed production of the same which may eventually warrant re-opening of the case, the Court cannot shut the doors of justice; no prejudice would be caused to the other side, if the subject leave is granted.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; impugned order partly having been set at naught, petitioners are permitted to produce the subject documents and to further examine the witness PW.2 within a period of one month or on the next date of hearing of the suit, whichever is earlier, on payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the defendants collectively; there is no interference qua the rejection of his application filed under Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC, 1908.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that he would not examine any other person than PW2 is also placed on record.
If the petitioners fail to avail the opportunity as granted and to pay the cost as directed, above, the impugned order now quashed shall stand resurrected.
All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Sd/- JUDGE DS