Allowed

Radhamma v. K. Rajesh Singh

Karnataka HC7 Dec 2021WP/1949/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Bangalore quashed a civil court order refusing to admit late evidence, directing the civil court to allow document production and examine the petitioner within four weeks, while mandating disposal of the pending suit within five months.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of impugned order; leave to produce additional documents and examine petitioner within 4 weeks; disposal of suit within 5 months.

Radhamma Vs K. Rajesh Singh — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1949/2021 (GM- CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

RADHAMMA W/O RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT SRINIDHI NILAYA 3^RD CROSS, GOWRIPET KOLAR TOWN-563 101

¶8

REP BY HER SPA HOLDER K.R.VENKATESH MURTHY S/O K.V.RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT SRINDHI NILAYA 3^RD CROSS, GOWRIPET, KOLAR TOWN-563 101.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI UMESH B N, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

1 . K. RAJESH SINGH S/O KUBER SINGH AGED 42 YEARS,

¶13

¶14

S.SAVITHA SINGH W/O K.RAJESH SINGH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶15

BOTH RESIDING AT KISHANBHAVAN BEHIND CORPORATION BANK GOWRIPET, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, KOLAR TOWN-563101.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI S.VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 11.12.2020 PASSED ON APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE IA NO.XIII, XIV AND XV IN O.S.NO.560/2013, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KOLAR, VIDE AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner's mother has commenced the suit in O.S.No.560/2013 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar (for short, 'the civil Court ') for permanent injunction asserting ownership of an immovable property measuring 25 feet x 30 feet of

¶22

¶23

Gowripet, Municipal Ward No.10, Kolar City. The defendants contest the suit disputing the identity of the property as described by the plaintiff and asserting ownership of an area 35 feet x 30 feet. There is no dispute that both the plaintiff and the respondents claim under common original title inasmuch as both rely upon deed dated 19.02.1976, which is a partition deed amongst Sri. B.K.Mohan Singh and his sons. After the demise of the plaintiff, the petitioner has come on record and when the suit is listed for arguments, the petitioner has filed the present set of applications for reopening the case, to produce additional documents and to examine himself further in support of these documents.

¶24

The civil Court has rejected the applications observing that the petitioner, despite the custody of the documents now filed along with the present set of

¶25

¶26

applications, has withheld the same. The civil Court has concluded that the petitioner should have produced these documents at an earlier stage and because the petitioner has not availed the multiple opportunities extended to him, he cannot be permitted to produce these documents at a belated stage.

¶27

It is obvious that the petitioner and the respondents, who claim under the same set of original owners, are engaged in a lis about the identity of the property as asserted by each of them. The present set of documents proposed to be filed by the petitioner includes sale deeds executed by some of the family members who claim under the admitted partition deed dated 19.02.1976 and revenue records. In the context of this dispute, these documents could have a vital bearing and enable a decision on merits without further

¶28

¶29

protraction. The civil Court has not considered these circumstances and therefore, this Court must intervene.

¶30

The suit is instituted in the year 2013 and

¶31

has been pending for almost a decade. The parties must assist and co-operate with the civil Court in the expeditious disposal of the suit and within a timeframe in the light of the directions issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of all long pending matters. Therefore, while setting quashing the impugned order, appropriate directions have to be issued in this regard. Hence the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

a. The petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.12.2020 in O.S.No.560/2013 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar is quashed allowing the petitioner's applications (I.A.Nos.XIII, XIV

¶34

¶35

and XV) with leave to produce the additional documents and examine himself in support thereof. The petitioner must complete his evidence, subject to the orders of the civil Court, within a period of four [4] weeks from the date of next hearing before the civil Court.

¶36

b. The civil Court shall take all measures for disposal of the suit on merits within five [5] months from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall ensure that request for unnecessary adjournments are curbed by imposing exemplary costs.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Radhamma v. K. Rajesh Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhamma v. K. Rajesh Singh

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

Smt Venkatamma Vs Sri Munishami

Smt. Parvathamma Vs Sri. Karibasaveshwara Seva Samiti (R)

The Management of Sri Murudabasaveshwara Sc/St Vs D G Mruthyunjayappa

Sri Narasimhamurthy Vs Sri Venkataramana

Sri Jayaram K Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

M/S Rhea Healthcare Private Limited Vs Ms.Roshni S Kirpalani