The High Court considered a writ petition seeking to quash an order dismissing an application to lead evidence in a civil suit. The court found no justifiable ground to interfere with the trial court's decision to dismiss the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS
WRIT PETITION No. 82555/2012 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
PARAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
RAMASHETTY S/O. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. RAMAPUR HUMNABAD TQ., BIDAR DIST. … PETITIONER (BY Sri. AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADV.) AND : --------
2
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE
10. NAGAPPA
S/O. CHANDRAPPA MUSALBAI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE
3
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE
ALL ARE R/O. RAMAPUR TQ. HUMNABAD DIST. BIDAR.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.04.2012 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING
O R D E R
In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature
of certiorari to quash the order dated 18.04.2012 in O.S. No. 23/2011 on the
file of Civil Judge at Humnabad dismissing I.A. No. 24.
4
of possession and for other reliefs. As early as on 14.07.2004 the trial Court framed the issues. Thereafter the petitioner examined three witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16. At the time of crossexamination of D.W.1 the petitioner filed an application I.A. No.21 to lead evidence on his side and the same came to be dismissed. Again the petitioner filed I.A.No. 23 to examine witness on his side and the same was allowed by levying cost of Rs.100/-. Even then the petitioner has not completed the evidence on his side and again filed I.A.No. 24. Under the impugned order the trial Court dismissed the application. In the circumstances I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed without reference
to the respondents.
Sd/JUDGE.
LRS.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order dismissing the petitioner's application to examine additional witnesses.
Whether the writ petition challenging the impugned order in O.S. No. 23/2011 deserves to be allowed.
Paramma Since deceased by LRS Ramashetty S/o. Chandappa
Tukaram S/o. Kallappa Arji
Bahisha S/o. Saibanna
H.N. Nagamohan Das
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
