Disposed

Sri H K Nataraj v. Sri H S Girish

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2021WP/22583/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petitioner liberty to file detailed applications to re-open a dismissed application for examining additional witnesses in an ejectment suit. The Court directed the lower civil court to consider such applications expeditiously upon their filing with appropriate leave to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to file more detailed applications to examine other witnesses; the civil court directed to consider them expeditiously.

Sri H K Nataraj Vs Sri H S Girish — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.22583/2021 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI H K NATARAJ S/O LATE SRI. KESHVEGOWDA @ PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O BASATTII KOPPALU BEHIND HOTEL NORWAY OPPOSITE TO SANKETHI HOSTEL HASSAN 573201

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SUMANTH L BHARADWA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

SRI H S GIRISH S/O SRI LATE HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O OPP YATHINDRA CONVENT HEMAVATHI NAGAR HASSAN 573201

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMON ORDER DATED 30.11.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,

¶14

¶15

HASSAN IN O.S.NO.451/2015, WHEREBY THE INTERIM APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 151 OF CPC TO REOPEN THE CASE AND ANOTHER APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 16 RULE 1(3) OF CPC R/W RULE 60(33) OF KARNATAKA CIVIL RULES OF PRACTICE, ARE CAME TO BE DISMISSED ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner is the defendant the suit in O.S.No.451/2015 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan (for short, ' the civil Court' ). The civil Court by the impugned order dated 30.11.2021 has rejected the petitioner's applications for reopening of the case and leave to examine additional witnesses.

¶18

The respondent has filed this suit in O.S.No.451/2015 for the petitioner's ejectment from the subject premises asserting termination of lease in accordance with law, and the petitioner has contested the suit denying the lawful termination of the tenancy and also urging additional grounds.

¶19

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶21

submits that after the petitioner has examined himself as DW.1, there is rapprochement between the petitioner and the respondent with the respondent receiving an additional sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) and reinstating the tenancy re-establishing landlord – tenancy relationship. He also submits that the respondent, who is examined as PW.1, has been cross examined on 17.11.2021, and he admits receipt of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) into his account from the petitioner on 24.12.2020 though he qualifies his admission stating that this receipt is in relation to another transaction but there is no other transaction between the petitioner and the respondent other than the transaction as landlord and tenant.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that this subsequent agreement is in the

¶23

¶24

presence of those who have now been cited as witnesses, and the civil Court should have considered these circumstances to allow the application but has opined that the petitioner's case about the subsequent agreement is unbelievable.

¶25

affidavits/memorandum of facts in support of the applications that the petitioner has not detailed any of these circumstances. On anxious consideration of the

¶26

facts and circumstances of the case, including the circumstances relied upon by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioner must have liberty to file more detailed applications in support of his case to examine other witnesses, and if the petitioner files such applications, the civil Court should consider the same expeditiously notwithstanding the impugned order but with appropriate leave to the respondent.

¶27

¶28

The petition stands disposed of with liberty to the

¶29

petitioner as aforesaid.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Sri H K Nataraj v. Sri H S Girish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H K Nataraj v. Sri H S Girish

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

M/S Reddy Structures Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Thimarayappa

Zilla Vokkaligara Sangha Shivamogga Vs Nirmala. D. C.

S.K. Madegowda Vs Boralingegowda

Smt Sobhamma Vs Smt Jayamma

Sri Murallikrishna Vs Sri I Vijayakumar

S v Chennabasappa Vs Smt S v Rudramma