Petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the Trial Court's refusal to mark an undertaking. The Court allowed the petition, setting aside the non-speaking order on the ground that no reasons were assigned for its disposal.
Impugned order set aside; Trial Court directed to reconsider document and pass appropriate order assigning reasons.
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 SEPTEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.12824 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI P VEERASWAMY
S/O. LATE. SRI. V PAPAIAH,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS,
2
ALL ARE R/AT GAREBHAVI ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU – 560 014.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. C PATTABI RAMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI P JAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O. LATE. SRI. PAPPAIAH, R/AT NO. 548, YC KEMPANNA LAYOUT, BRIGHT WAY SCHOOL MAIN ROAD, GOWDANAPALYA, BENGALURU – 560 014.
….RESPONDENT
(SERVICE OF NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 08.08.2019)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 2.2.2018 PASSED BY HON'BLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANGARAPET IN O.S.NO.233/2008 [ANNEXURE-A] AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO MARK THE AGREEMENT DATED 8.4.1993 , ANNEXURE-E AS EXHIBIT TO ENABLE HIM TO PROCEED WITH THE SUIT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 07.02.2018, passed in O.S.No.233/2008 by the Civil
3
Judge & JMFC, Bangarapet, has filed the present writ petition.
Respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.233/2008 for partition and separate possession against the petitioners. Petitioners filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. When the case is posted for evidence, petitioner No.1(e) was examined as DW-1 and has tendered a document which is an undertaking executed by the respondent in favour of his brother i.e., the petitioner herein, for marking the same. The Trial Court, on the basis of the objections raised by the respondent, has passed an order refusing to mark the said document on the ground that the document is insufficiently stamped. Hence this writ petition.
4
Though notice was issued to the respondent, there is no representation on his behalf.
that the Trial Court has not assigned any reason for refusing to mark the document. He submits that the order passed by the Trial Court is not a speaking order since no reasons are assigned in the said order. Hence, he prays to allow the writ petition.
5
set aside. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to re-consider the document in question, afresh, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after assigning reasons.
SD/JUDGE
RD
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order refusing to mark a document as insufficiently stamped is a speaking order requiring reasons for disposal.
Kanthamma @ Smt. Kanthamma
Sri. Prakash Kumar
Sri. Prathap Kumar
Premalatha
Sri. Nagaraj
Sri P Jayakumar
Ashok S. Kinagi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
