IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO.55100/2015 [GM-CPC] AND WRIT PETITION NO.57596/2015 [GM-CPC] BETWEEN:
SRI. VENKATARAVANAPPA, S/O. CHIKKA ABBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. KRISHNAPURA VILLAGE, NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT-563 101. … PETITIONER [BY SRI. RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI. VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADVOCATE] AND:
1. SRI. THIMMAIAH, S/O. LATE CHIKKA ABBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. SMT. KADIRAMMA, W/O. LATE SONNAPPA, MAJOR, 3. SMT. NAGAMMA, D/O. LATE SONNAPPA, MAJOR, 4. SRI. VENKATESH, S/O. LATE SONNAPPA, MAJOR, ALL ARE R/O. KRISHNAPURA VILLAGE, NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT-563 101.
5. SMT. THIMMAKKA, W/O. LATE NARASIMHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO.15, P.S.K. NAIDU ROAD, P. MUNIYAPPA GARDEN, DODDA KUNTE, COX TOWN, BENGALURU.
6. SMT. THIRUMALAMMA, W/O. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O. NARAYANAPPANAVARA THOTAGALU, GUNIGUNTA PALYA, MULBAGAL TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT.
7. SMT. MUNIYAMMA, W/O. POOJARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. K.B. HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, NARASAPURA POST, KOLAR TALUKA AND DISTRICT-563 101.
8. SMT. CHIKKA MUNIYAMMA, W/O. THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. MADAVAGURJENAHALLI VILLAGE, SUGATUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUKA AND DISTRICT-563 101. … RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. DEEPAK J., ADVOCATE FOR R1] * * * THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEX-E PASSED IN O.S. NO.233/2005 ON 07.11.2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR TO ALLOW I.A. NO.27 AND I.A. NO.28.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. The petitioner, who is defendant No.3 before the trial Court has challenged the Order of the trial Court dated 07.11.2015 passed in O.S. No.233/2005, whereby the trial Court has rejected I.A. Nos.27 and 28 which were filed to re- open the case and permit the petitioner to produce documents.
2. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposes allowing of the applications and submits that the examination-in-chief is complete and cross-examination is concluded and hence, the question of affording additional opportunity for production of documents so as to improve the case of defendant No.3 is impermissible.
3. The suit is one for partition of the suit properties.
Defendant No.3 after completion of his evidence and cross- examination has filed the applications under Section 151 of CPC and under Order 8 Rule 1(A)(3) of CPC and has sought to produced 10 documents. A perusal of the documents to be produced would indicate that they are original ‘saguvali chit’ and other documents which are in the nature of public documents. Nodoubt, the trial Court has observed that the examination-in-chief of D.W.1 was taken as nil on 02.03.2015 and was cross-examined on the basis of the evidence that was initially led in by D.W.1 on 07.01.2015. However, despite there being a delay on the part of defendant No.3 to have produced the said documents, taking note of the nature of the documents and also noticing that the main relief is one for partition, to meet the ends of justice by considering the said applications in liberal manner without being hypertechnical. Further, the petitioner could be compensated by putting him on terms. Accordingly, I.A. Nos.27 and 28 are allowed.
4. It is made clear that defendant No.3 would mark the documents on the next date of hearing and co-operate with expeditious conclusion of the proceedings noticing that the suit is relating to the year 2005. The petitioner is to be present before the trial Court within 10 [ten] days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner/defendant No.3 is to pay a cost of Rs.3,000/-
[Rupees Three Thousand only] to the plaintiff. In the light of the suit pertaining to the year 2005, the trial Court is directed to take-up the matter on priority basis taking note of Administrative Circular No.2/2017, dated 28.02.2017 and dispose of the matter expeditiously. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed subject to the above said observations.
Sd/- JUDGE Ksm*