Allowed

Mahadev S/O. Gurubasappa Teli v. Kalavati W/O. Adiveppa Ganagi

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2013WP/77007/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenging an order by the District Court regarding production orders and amendment of plaint in a partition suit were filed. The High Court allowed the petitions, quashing the impugned order that failed to apply the mind to the delay and relevance, and restored the applications for the trial court's fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order dtd.20.02.2013 allowing IA Nos.IV to VII; restored said applications to the trial court for fresh consideration.

Mahadev S/O. Gurubasappa Teli Vs Kalavati W/O. Adiveppa Ganagi — Partition | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.77007 OF 2013 [GM-CPC]

¶7

AND

¶8

WRIT PETITION Nos.81289-291 OF 2013 [GM-CPC]

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MAHADEV S/O. GURUBASAPPA TELI AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. ANANDPUR HATTARGI-591245, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM

¶11

... PETITIONER [COMMON]

¶12

(By Sri. M G NAGANURI ADV.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

KALAVATI W/O. ADIVEPPA GANAGI AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. ANANDPUR HATTARGI-591245, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM

¶15

PARAPPA S/O. GURUBASAPPA TELI AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. ANANDPUR, HATTARGI-591245, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

BASAVARAJ S/O. GURUBASAPPA TELI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶18

LEELAVATI W/O. BASAVARAJ TELI AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. C/O. M.G. TELI, R/O. ANANDPUR HATTARGI-591245 TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM

¶19

AMULYA D/O. BASAVARAJ TELI AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. C/O. M.G. TELI, R/O. ANANDPUR HATTARGI-591245, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM

¶20

RAGHAVENDRA S/O. BASAVARAJ TELI AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. C/O. M.G. TELI, R/O. ANANDPUR HATTARGI-591245, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM

¶21

RAJASHRI W/O. SIDDARAI BENDIGER AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. AUTO NAGAR, BELGAUM -590015

¶22

JAYASHRI W/O. VIJAYKUMAR TELI AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. ANANDPUR, HATTARGI-591245, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM

¶23

MAHANANDA W/O. MAHADEV TELI AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. ANANDPUR, HATTARGI-591245, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM

¶24

... RESPONDENTS

¶25

(By Sri. SRINAND A PACHHAPURE FOR C/R1)

¶26

: 3 :

¶27

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.20.02.2013 PASSED BY THE SR.CIVIL JUDGE HUKERI, IN OS.NO.46/2010 ON IA.NO.IV TO VII PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-L.

¶28

These writ petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and

¶31

petitioner is defendant No.3 in O.S. No.46/2010 pending on the file of Civil Judge at Hukkeri.

¶32

Respondent Nos.2 to 8 being codefendants with the petitioner and formal parties to the petitioner, issue of notice to said respondents stand dispensed with.

¶33

With the consent of Sri.M.G.Naganuri,

¶34

learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Srinanda N.Pachchapure, learned advocate

¶35

: 4 :

¶36

appearing for the respondents/caveators, writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶37

Suit was instituted on 15.11.2010 to pass a decree of partition and separate possession and for grant of consequential releifs. The petitioner being defendant No.3 filed written statement on 08.03.2011. Issues having been raised, trial of the suit has commenced. At that stage, the plaintiff filed IA Nos.IV to VII for grant of permission to produce documents; for permitting amendment of the plaint and for recalling PW-1 for further evidence. Despite objections being filed, learned trial Judge allowed the applications on 20.02.2013. Assailing the common order, these writ petitions have been filed.

¶38

Perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that the learned trial Judge has allowed the applications without lawful consideration. The

¶39

: 5 :

¶40

application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC having been filed after commencement of trial, without any reasons, has been mechanically allowed. The reason for belated production of documents and relevancy has not been indicated. There is arbitrary approach to the matter.

¶41

In the result, writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order is quashed. IA Nos.IV to VII stand restored for consideration and decision by the learned trail Judge. Contentions of both parties are kept open.

¶42

No costs.

¶43

SD/JUDGE

¶44

Ct:byg/- RK/-

Mahadev S/O. Gurubasappa Teli v. Kalavati W/O. Adiveppa Ganagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadev S/O. Gurubasappa Teli v. Kalavati W/O. Adiveppa Ganagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Kdo Jain Education Trust Vs Sri Chimanlal S/O Mulji Desai

The Management of Nwkrtc Vs Parameshwara Narasimha Patagar

Vinayak S/O Basappa Olekar, Vs the Management of Nwkrtc

Shivashankargouda S/O. Timmanagouda Policepatil Vs Bagalkot Udyog Ltd.

Basavaraj S/O. Nagappa Sudambi Vs Bheemappa S/O. Hanamantappa Masali

Iranna S/O. Shivappa Ukkali Vs Gangawwa W/O. Gulappa Shirhatti