Writ petition against civil court order recalling evidence and reopening a long-pending partition suit. Court upheld order but directed civil court to dispose of suit within 8 months.
Impugned order of civil court upheld; suit directed to be disposed within eight months.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 11159/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
SRI. ANANTHAPADMANABHA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
2
BALEHONNUR DISTRICT CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 112.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K.V. NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K V NARASIMHAN., ADVOCATE)
AND :
BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 30 AND 30/A 5TH MAIN, JAYALAKSHMIPUJRAM VANI VILAS MAIN MOHALLA, MYSORE.
RESPONDENT NO. 4 AND 5 ARE PARTNERS OF M/S VRIKSAI CONSTRUCTIONS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 46
3
VISHWAMANAVA DOUBLE ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M. RAMA MOHAN., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 AND R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT/SET ASIDE THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-S DATED 24.1.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MYSURU IN O.S.NO.325/2012 ON IA NO.15, 16, 17.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.325/2012 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru [for short ' the civil Court '], have filed this petition impugning the civil Court's order dated 24.01.2019. The civil Court by this impugned order has allowed the respondents’ applications under Section 151, under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC and under Order VIII Rule 1-A read with Section 151 of CPC
4
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short, ' the CPC' ] respectively.
5
signatures of Sri. Ananthapadmanabha therein with his admitted signatures.
and with such order being impugned before this Court in W.P.No.30323 and 30510-511/2015, this Court has also confirmed the rejection observing that it would be open to the civil Court to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures. After the disposal of these writ petitions, the respondents have filed the applications for reopening of the case for production of the original partition deed dated 14.05.1998 and to recall PW.1 to mark the said original partition deed.
a certified copy of this deed is already marked as an exhibit, and the respondents could not trace the original
6
at the relevant time and it is traced recently. The also state that if the original of the partition deed dated 14.05.1998 is on record many ambiguities would be cleared. The civil Court has allowed these applications by the impugned order observing that a certified copy of this deed is already marked, and because the genuineness of the deed as also the manner of the execution and registration is doubted, the production of the original partition deed would throw some light on the controversy.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the present applications are filed only to get over the earlier orders of the civil Court and this Court and also certain statements in the evidence. He argues that in view of the earlier orders rejecting the petitioners similar applications, the present application would be barred by constructive res judicata . He
7
submits that the civil Court should not have overlooked these circumstances.
has prevailed without a final decision though the evidence is completed way back in the year 2015-2016.
8
This suit would be a long pending matter and the civil Court will have to take necessary measures in terms of the directions issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of long pending matters. Therefore, while rejecting the petition, the civil Court is called upon to identify the suit as a long pending matter and dispose of the same within eight [8] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
SD/JUDGE
RB
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the civil Court's order allowing recall of production of original partition deed and reopening of case requires interference.
Whether delayed disposal of a long pending suit mandates specific direction on finalization of the matter.
Whether the High Court should allow forensic examination on original deed when certified copy is already marked.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
EVELINE JOSEPHINE MENEZES
SAHANA C A
C A SAMATHA
DR. C. RAJAGOPAL
C. UPENDRA
M/S VRIKSAI CONSTRUCTIONS
B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
