IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.3226-3227/2019 (GM – CPC) BETWEEN:
1. MR. SUNDARA BHANDARY S/O VASU BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 2. MR. UPENDRA.K S/O SUNDARA BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS PETITIONER Nos.1 & 2 ARE R/AT KADALI, D.NO.1-74/1, 2ND CROSS ROAD PADVINANGADY, KONCHADY POST MANGALORE-575008. ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI NAVEED AHMED, ADV.] AND:
1. MRS. THUNGAMMA BHANDARY W/O SUNDARA BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT KADALI, D.NO.1-74/1 2ND CROSS ROAD, PADVINANGADY KONCHADY POST MANGALORE-575008.
2. MR. MOHANDAS S/O SUNDARA BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS FLAT No.105, PREETI APARTMENTS KODIALGUTHU, KODIALBAIL MANGALORE-575003. …RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN I.A.NO.18 AND 19 IN O.S.NO.101/2010 IN THE FILE OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALORE DATED 11.01.2014 AND 14.01.2014 AT ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY; 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 11.01.2014 passed on I.A.Nos.18 and 19 in O.S.N.101/2010 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangalore ['Trial Court' for short] whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 151 of CPC seeking for re-opening the case and for adducing evidence of defendant Nos.1 and 3 has been rejected.
2. The respondent No.2 filed suit in O.S.NO.101/2010 before the Trial Court seeking relief of partition in the suit properties. The petitioners filed written statement. However, on the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, their evidence was taken as nil. Now, the petitioners have filed applications under section 151 of CPC seeking permission to lead their evidence which has been rejected. Hence, these writ petitions.
3. It is discernable from the records that, on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the defendants’ evidence was taken as nil. More particularly, as the defendant No.1 is sailing with the plaintiff. In such circumstances, the Trial Court has recorded the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
4. Now, the applications filed by the petitioners is nothing but the abuse of process of Court. The petitioners cannot act according to their whims and fancies while conducting the trial before the Court. The Court cannot come to the rescue of the litigants who change their stance to suit their convenience. The attempt made by the petitioners seeking permission of the Court to re-open the case is nothing but the dilatory tactics which cannot be encouraged. The order impugned does not suffer from any perversity or illegality.
Hence, the writ petitions stand dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.