Allowed

Nataraju v. Smt. Khudsia Sulthana Razak

Karnataka HC17 Dec 2021WP/19268/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner in a specific performance suit filed under Art. 227 praying to quash civil court order rejecting his IA to lead evidence. Writ petition allowed quashing impugned order permitting petitioner to lead evidence within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; petitioner permitted to lead evidence within six weeks but imposed cost of Rs.10,000 payable to respondents.

Nataraju Vs Smt. Khudsia Sulthana Razak — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.19268 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NATARAJU S/O LATE SRI SHAMANNA, AGE: ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MARENAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 149

¶8

.. PETITIONER

¶9

(By SRI. VARADARAJ P.N., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT. KHUDSIA SULTHANA RAZAK, W/O LATE ABDUL RAZAK, AGE: ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.207, 8^TH MAIN, PILLANNA GARDEN, 3^RD STAGE, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU - 560 045.

¶12

SRI MD. KHIZER RAZAK, S/O ABDUL RAZAK, AGE: ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.207, 8^TH MAIN, PILLANNA GARDEN, 3^RD STAGE, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU - 560 045.

¶13

2

¶14

SMT. UMME HAANI RAZAK D/O LATE ABDUL RAZAK, AGE: ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.207, 8^TH MAIN, PILLANNA GARDEN, 3^RD STAGE, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU - 560 045. 4. SMT. UMME KULSIM RAZAK, D/O LATE ABDUL RAZAK, AGE: ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.207, 8^TH MAIN, PILLANNA GARDEN, 3^RD STAGE, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU - 560 045. 5. SMT. UMME SALMA RAZAK, D/O LATE ABDUL RAZAK, AGE: ABOUT 20 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.207, 8^TH MAIN, PILLANNA GARDEN, 3^RD STAGE, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU - 560 045. 6. SMT. KEMPAMMA, W/O LATE SHAMANNA, AGE: ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MARENAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK. 7. SMT. PILLAMMA, D/O LATE SHAMANNA, AGE: ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MARENAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶15

¶16

SRI VENKATESH, S/O LATE SHAMANNA, AGE: ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MARENAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶17

SMT. SAROJAMMA, D/O SHAMANNA, W/O NARAYANAPPA, AGE: ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MARENAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶18

SMT. BHAGYA, D/O LATE SHAMANNA, W/O NANJE GOWDA, AGE: ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MARENAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK. ...RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. C.H.RAMACHANDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; NOTICE TO R6 TO R10 ARE STANDS WAIVED V/O/DATED 28.10.2021)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.09.2021 PENDING BEFORE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, (Sr.Dn.), DEVANAHALLI, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.XVI AND I.A.NO.XVII FILED FOR REOPENING AND RECALLING THE CASE AND PERMIT HIM TO LEAD EVIDENCE IN O.S.NO.465/2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.,

¶21

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is one of the defendants, and is one of the legal representatives brought on record on the demise of the original defendant in O.S.No.465/2007 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli [for short, 'the civil Court' ]. The petitioner is aggrieved because the civil Court has rejected the petitioner's application for re-opening the case and for leading evidence. The civil Court’s reasoning is as follows:-

¶25

"This Court is not against allowing the I.A.No.15 and 16 of the defendant No.1(b) for the reason of any delay. But, the defendant No.1(b) did not appear and he is not ready to give his evidence today itself. Therefore, this Court finds no bona-fides in allowing the I.A.No.15 and 16 in a case pending from 2007".

¶26

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner, while

¶28

stating that the petitioner places his apologies on record for his conduct before the civil Court, submits that the petitioner must be given another opportunity to place on record his evidence so that there is complete and effective adjudication of the respondent's claim for specific performance. He also states that the petitioner would, in all event, complete his evidence within a period of six [6] weeks and if the petitioner is not able to complete his evidence within six [6] weeks, he shall waive his right. This Court must observe that these submissions are to place on record bonafides , and are considered accordingly.

¶29

In the light of the civil Court's observation that it was willing to allow the petitioner's application, but is not allowing the application because of the petitioner's conduct and the submissions now made, the petition is disposed of quashing the civil Court’s impugned order

¶30

¶31

dated 14.09.2021 and allowing the petitioner's

¶32

application.

¶33

Consequentially, the petitioner shall be permitted to lead evidence but on the condition that he shall, under all circumstances, complete the evidence within six [6] weeks from the date of next hearing before the civil Court. The petitioner is also imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand Only] payable on the next date of hearing before the civil Court and such amount shall be payable to the respondents.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

Nataraju v. Smt. Khudsia Sulthana Razak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nataraju v. Smt. Khudsia Sulthana Razak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Jayaprakash Since Dead by Lrs Vs B S Veerabhadran Dead by Lrs B Nagesh

Smt. Jayamma Vs Sri Basavaraju

Sri H Ramakrishne Gowda Vs Deputy Director

G.Rama Reddy Vs M.Ramesh

Smt. Sumathi Vs Sri. Sherkhan Suri

Smt. H. Manjula Vs Smt.Uma Sridhar