IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA W.P.Nos.6520 & 6948-49/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
Sri Varinder Singh, Aged about 43 years S/o. Sri. Manohar Lal Dua, Residing at Flat No.2/1 Jaya Residency, 2nd Floor, 5th Main, J.P. Nagar, 7th Phase, Bengaluru – 560 078. ... Petitioner (By Sri. B.M.Halaswamy, Advocate) AND:
Sri B Bettaiah, S/o. Late Bettegowda, Aged about 69 years, Residing at No.29, 30, 23rd Main, 7th ‘A’ Cross, J.P. Nagar 2nd Phase, Bengaluru – 560 078. ... Respondent (By Sri Deepak, Advocate for Sri M.S. Somnath, Advocate) These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 17.01.2019 passed by the 52nd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore CCH-53, on I.A.Nos.17 to 19, Annexure – J in O.S.No.9733/2015 and etc., These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The defendant filed these writ petitions against the order dated 17.01.2019 on I.A.Nos.17 to 19 made in O.S.No.9733/2015 on the file of 52nd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, allowing the applications filed to reopen the case, examine the witness and issue of summons to the witness with a cost of Rs.500/-.
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment of defendant from the suit schedule “B” property, the defendant-present petitioner filed the written statement denying the relationship between the parties. The plaintiff has lead evidence on 14.03.2016 and the trial Court framed the issues on 01.04.2016. The plaintiff even before leading evidence has not filed the list of witness and not examined witness from his side.
3. When the matter was posted for arguments and after completion of evidence at that stage the plaintiff filed three applications I.A.No.17 under Section 151 of CPC to re-open the case from the stage of arguments to the stage of further evidence of the plaintiff, I.A.No.18 under Order XVI Rule 1(A) read with Section 151 of CPC to permit him to examine the witness and lead further evidence and I.A.No.19 under Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC to summon the witness by name Chidananda.B, contending that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and produced the entire document i.e., agreement to show the disputed relationship between the landlord and tenant. The defendant has disputed and denied the execution of rental agreement, in view of the same the application filed for summons of witness of Chidananda.B who is the witness to the agreement. The said application were opposed by the defendant. The trial Court considering the application and objection by the impugned order dated 17.01.2019 allowed the applications. Hence, present writ petitions are filed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri.B.M.Halaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court allowing the applications filed by the plaintiff on I.A. Nos.17 to 19 is erroneous and contrary to law. He would further contend that the applications filed by the plaintiff are highly belated. When the matter was posted for arguments the trial Court ought to reject the applications. He would further contend that the applications filed is only to protect the proceedings and highly belated which are liable to be rejected and therefore, he sought to allow these writ petitions.
6. Per contra, Sri. Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff sought to justify the impugned order and contended that since the defendant in the cross examination disputed relationship between the land lord and tenant and also denied the agreement in the cross examination. The plaintiff was forced to file these applications to lead evidence and to examine one Chidananda.B who is the witness to the agreement. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petitions.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the respondent- plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment on the ground that he is the owner of the property in question and is required for bonafide use and occupation. The defendant filed the written statement denied the averments made in the plaint and disputed the very relationship between the plaintiff and defendant and sought for dismissal of the suit. After completion of the evidence on both the sides, when the matter was posted for arguments, at that stage three applications came to be filed by the plaintiff. The trial Court considering the applications and objection recorded a finding that no doubt from the stage to file written statement the cross examination of PW1 to reach evidence and also to argue the case on merits would have considered evidence on the dates stated in the objections to avoid delay in the interest of justice, an opportunity should be given to the plaintiff to prove his case, considering the entire material on record the trial Court is of the opinion merely allowing the applications no prejudice will be caused to the defendant, since the defendant has denied the relationship between the land lord and tenant by allowing the present applications will no way prejudice the case of the defendant, the trial Court allowed the applications by the impugned order which is in accordance with law.
8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order passed by the trial Court in allowing the applications filed by the plaintiff is just and proper. Petitioner has not made out any good ground to interfere with the same in exercise of power under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE KPS