Allowed

Hanumantgouda S/O Timmanagouda Patil v. Padmawati W/O Channappa Malaghan

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2019WP/107012/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Court interdicted the District Judge for rejecting an interim application for additional documents that had already been allowed by a prior appellate order. Since the petitioner had led evidence and marked documents following the earlier permission, the appellate court was correct in taking such evidence and the impugned rejection was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 28.01.2019 rejecting I.A.No.III is set aside.

Hanumantgouda S/O Timmanagouda Patil Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4^{T H} DAY OF JUNE 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

¶5

W.P.NO.107012/2019 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

HANUMANTGOUDA S/O TIMMANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 71 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BARAGI,TQ: MUDHOL, NOW R/AT AMALZERI, TQ: BILAGI,DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶8

... PETITIONER (BY SRI. F V PATIL, ADV.)

¶9

AND

¶10

PADMAWATI W/O CHANNAPPA MALAGHAN, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BADAGI,TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶11

... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ BALLOLLI FOR SACHIN S MAGADUM, ADVS FOR C/R.)

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGND ORDER DATED 28.01.2019 ON I.A.NO.III IN R.A.NO.4/2012 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT, SITTING AT JAMKHANDI VIDE ANNEXURED.

¶13

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner is before this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 28.01.2019 on I.A.No.III in R.A.No.4/2012 on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, Sitting at Jamkhandi.

¶17

The petitioner herein filed R.A.No.4/2012 challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 8/2002. The petitioner filed I.A.No.II for re-opening the case, I.A.No.III filed under Order 41 Rule 27 R/w. Section 151 of CPC for production of additional documents and I.A.No.IV for leading further evidence. The said three interim applications were allowed by the order dated 22.09.2017. Subsequently, the petitioner was permitted to led evidence and mark the documents produced along with I.A.No.III.

¶18

¶19

Accordingly, the petitioner led his evidence and marked documents on 14.01.2019. Further, the respondent cross examined the petitioner on 24.01.2019. Without their being any reason and without any request by any of the parties, the learned District Judge took up once again I.A.No.III filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for production of additional documents and by impugned order rejected I.A.No.III. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-caveator and

¶21

perused the writ papers.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that I.A.Nos. II to IV filed by the petitioner for reopening, production of additional documents and to lead further evidence was allowed by the Appellate Court by the order dated 22.09.2017 and in pursuance to the said order, the petitioner has led the evidence

¶23

¶24

and got marked the documents and hence, it was not open for the learned District Judge to take up I.A.No.III once again. Further, he submits that the documents ought to have considered along with the main matter and appreciated the same, while disposing of the appeal. But, the learned Judge in an erroneous manner has rejected I.A.No.III.

¶25

Per contra learned counsel for the respondent – caveator admits that interim applications were allowed by the order dated 22.09.2017. But, he prays for consideration of the documents produced as additional documents at the time of final hearing. Learned counsel for the respondent-caveator submits that interim applications ought to have considered along with the main matter. Further, he contends that the documents which are sought to be produced as additional documents are not necessary for disposal of the appeal. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶26

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ papers, I am of the view that the learned District Judge committed an error in rejecting I.A.No.III under impugned order dated 28.01.2019 in R.A.No.4/2012. The learned Judge lost sight of the fact that I.A.Nos.II, III and IV were allowed by the order dated 22.09.2017. In pursuance to the order dated 22.09.2017, the evidence of PW.1 was recorded on 14.01.2019 and PW.1 was cross examined on 24.01.2019 by the respondent without raising any objection. The documents which were produced as additional documents were also marked in the evidence of P.W.1 on 14.01.2019. When documents were permitted to be marked after allowing I.A.No.III, the learned District Judge could not have again passed an order on I.A.No.III. I.A.No.III was not on record as on the date of passing the impugned order. Whenever additional evidence is permitted to be produced, the

¶28

¶29

Appellate Court may take such evidence or direct the trial Court to take such evidence. In the case on hand the Appellate Court itself has taken such evidence. The documents produced as additional documents and which are marked will have to be appreciated at the time of disposal of the appeal. Therefore, the order dated 28.01.2019 in R.A.No.4/2012 on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, sitting at Jamkhandi is set aside.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

Hanumantgouda S/O Timmanagouda Patil v. Padmawati W/O Channappa Malaghan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumantgouda S/O Timmanagouda Patil v. Padmawati W/O Channappa Malaghan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Mathurabai W/O Lakshmanrao Kulkarni Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhagyashree D/O Mallikarjun Talikoti Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddhartha S/O Kalmesh Gothe Vs the State of Karnataka

Santosh S/O Yallappa Shidraygol Vs the Deputy Director of

Chandrashekar Sridhar Naik, Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S U.G. Metals Vs the Joint Director