Allowed

Smt. Fatima W/O. Riyaz Managaonkar v. Shri. Lalu S/O. Babukhan Pathan

Karnataka HC25 Sept 2021WP/100963/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition seeking to quash a trial court order refusing to admit additional evidence and reopen a case. The bench set aside the impugned order, directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within nine months, and kept rival contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order on I.A. Nos. 13 and 14 set aside; Applications allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 3,000; Trial court directed to dispose of suit within nine months.

Smt. Fatima W/O. Riyaz Managaonkar Vs Shri… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

W.P. No. 100963/2018 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. FATIMA W/O RIYAZ MANAGAONKAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O GANGOLLI-AJARA, TQ: AJARA, DIST: KOLHAPUR-MAHARASHTRA STATE.

¶9

PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SHRI: LALU S/O BABUKHAN PATHAN, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC.: BUSINESS, R/O: STATION ROAD, KHANAPUR, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶13

SMT. MAMATAJ W/O BABAKHAN PATHAN, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC.: BUSINESS, R/O: GANDHI NAGAR, SANTI BASTWAD, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶14

SHRI. MOHSIN S/O BABAKHAN PATHAN, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC.: BUSINESS, R/O: GANDHI NAGAR, SANTI BASTWAD, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶15

SHRI. IMRAN S/O BABAKHAN PATHAN, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC.: BUSINESS, R/O: GANDHI NAGAR, SANTI BASTWAD, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶16

SMT. REKHA W/O AMIR INAMDAR, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O PETH NAKA, KOLHAPUR,

¶17

¶18

TQ & DIST: KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA STATE.

¶19

KUMARI KARISHMA, D/O BABAKHAN PATHAN, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC.: STUDENT, R/O: GANDHI NAGAR, SANTI BASTWAD, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶20

SMT. KHARUBI MALANGKHAN PATHAN, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC.: BUSINESS, R/O: PANTA GALLI, LONDA, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶21

RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI Y.G. GUMAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R4, R5 & R6 NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED, NOTICE TO R1 & R7 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2018 PASSED ON I.A. NO. XIII & XIV IN O.S. NO. 149/2011 BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, BELAGAVI & ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This writ petition by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.

¶27

149/2011 is directed against the impugned order on I.A.

¶28

No. 13 and 14 dated 01.02.2018 passed by the learned First

¶29

Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Belagavi, whereby the said application

¶30

filed by the petitioner-plaintiffs to reopen the case and for

¶31

permission to adduce further evidence of PW1 as well as to

¶32

¶33

produce certain additional documents, were rejected by the trial Court.

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record including the impugned order.

¶35

A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the trial Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in refusing to permit the petitioner to produce additional documents and for permission to reopen the case and adduce further evidence of PW1 without appreciating that the proposed oral and documentary evidence to be adduced by the petitioner were required for adjudication of the suit and consequently the impugned order has occasioned failure of justice warranting interference of this Court in the present writ petition.

¶36

In the result, I pass the following order.

¶37

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i) Writ Petition is allowed;

¶40

ii) Impugned common order on I.A. No. 13 and 14 is set aside. Consequently, I.A. No. 13 and 14 stand allowed subject to payment of costs of `3,000/payable to the respondents-defendants before the trial Court;

¶41

iii) All rival contentions between the parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same;

¶42

iv) Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2011, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on merits as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶43

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

bvv

Smt. Fatima W/O. Riyaz Managaonkar v. Shri. Lalu S/O. Babukhan Pathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Fatima W/O. Riyaz Managaonkar v. Shri. Lalu S/O. Babukhan Pathan

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

Veerappa S/O Andanappa Kumbar Vs Veeranna S/O Yallappa Kumbar

Rudrappa Bhimappa Konnuri Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Kirankumar S/O. Guruppa Budi Vs the Deputy Commissioner

The Head Master Vs Smt.Tippavva W/O Shivaputrappa Hunahunti

Shivamurthi Ningappa Kamati Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

M/S Suresh Goel and Associates Vs Indian Institute of Technology