Dismissed

Sri. Virupakshaiah v. Smt. M. Sheela

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2021WP/28563/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227 regarding a suit for specific performance, the High Court dismissed the petition. The petitioner sought review of an order rejecting an application to produce documents. The Court declined intervention due to the petitioner's inconsistent cross-examination suggestions regarding price and the specific nature of the dispute, while directing the trial court to con

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; trial court directed to complete suit proceedings within nine months.

Sri. Virupakshaiah Vs Smt. M. Sheela — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.28563 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH, S/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT HAROKETANAHALLI, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR.S, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. M. SHEELA, D/O S.MANNOJI RAO, W/O RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.50/A, NEW TIMBERYARD LAYOUT, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 026.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. PRAMOD N. KATHAVI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.6.2018 AT ANNEX-G PASSED BY THE SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MAGADI IN O.S.378/2014 REJECTING I.A.12 AND ALLOW THE I.A.12KL BY ALLOWING THIS W.P.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

There is a suit for a decree of specific performance in O.S.No.370/2014; it is filed by the respondent herein; the

¶20

said suit is founded on an Agreement to Sell dated 28.02.2011; the petitioner being the defendant entered appearance and filed his written Statement on 12/12/2011 resisting the suit; the issues were framed on 07/07/2014; the respondent got herself examined in chief as PW1 on 08/10/2015 and her cross-examination was completed on 09/06/2017.

¶21

The petitioner entered the Witness Box as DW1 on 03/07/2018 by filing affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief and his cross-examination was completed on 21/01/2020; petitioner has got entry as DW2 to the box and when his cross-examination was half a through, he moved the subject application on 01/06/2016 or 01/06/2018 under the provisions order VIII Rule 1A of CPC, 1908 seeking to produce the subject documents contending that they had accompanied the copy of plaint sent from the Registry of the Court below; the application was resisted by the respondent by filing objections on 15/06/2018.

¶22

¶23

The learned Senior Civil Judge, Magadi having

¶24

rejected the said application has declined to receive the subject document on Board; grieving thereby, the petitioner is knocking at the doors of the Writ Court.

¶25

After service of notice, the respondent-plaintiff having entered appearance through his counsel, vehemently opposes the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the grounds on which it has been predicated; at the instance of the Bar, the original records were summoned and looked into with the participation of counsel for the parties.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶27

(a) the Agreement to Sell is not much in dispute;

¶28

much of the controversies enter the price payable for the land in question; the documents that are sought to be now produced by the petitioner are in support of his contention that plaint documents are concocted; it is bit difficult to countenance such a contention going by the suggestion which

¶29

¶30

the petitioner side had put to PW1 during the course of cross-

¶31

examination; what emerges from the suggestion put in the cross-examination is that there was an Agreement to Sell and the price of the property was Rs.5,30,000/- per acre and not Rs.2,80,000/-;

¶32

(b) the vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that whether the documents sought to be now produced should be taken on Board or not, is a smaller question but the Court below treated the same as if the documents are pressed into evidence, arguably may have some force; but that does not per se entitle him to succeed in the writ petition because of the specific stand which he has taken by making suggestion in the cross-examination to PW1 as mentioned above; the Writ Court does not readily interfere when the order is just shown to be wrong, what is required being its otherwise unsustainability;

¶33

¶34

below after looking into apparently perfunctory application of the petitioner, has rejected it in his discretion which is exercised in accordance with the rules of reason & justice; such discretionary orders do not merit a deeper examination at the hands of the writ court exercising a limited supervisory

¶35

¶36

jurisdiction constitutionally vested u/a 227 vide Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, (2003) 3 SCC 524;

¶37

(d) there is yet another reason for this Court for not granting indulgence in the matter; the respondent-gentle lady being present before the Court submits that she is fed up of this litigation and that she wants to buy peace by offering the price of Rs.5,30,000/- which the petitioner is unconscionably demanding, directly or indirectly; this offer was put to the petitioner and his counsel declines to accept the same saying that acceptance of the offer would liquidate his clients stand in the suit; thus, conduct of the petitioner is bit unconscionable and therefore, this court abstains from granting any relief to a litigant of the kind.

¶38

In the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed, however requesting the learned Judge of the Court below to accomplish the suit proceedings within a period of nine months, all contentions of the parties having been kept open.

¶39

The observations herein made being confined to disposal of the writ petition, shall not influence the trial & disposal of the suit.

¶40

¶41

Registry to send back the LCR immediately & report

¶42

compliance to the Registrar General of this Court.

¶43

Cost made easy.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Sri. Virupakshaiah v. Smt. M. Sheela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Virupakshaiah v. Smt. M. Sheela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Late Smt Gangamma Vs Late Sri Eshwaraiah

Smt. Pushpavathi Vs Sri S Vasanth Kumar

Smt Meenakshi Vs Sri M K Mohandas

Sri Bhogesh Vs Smt Munivenkatamma

Muniraju Vs Papamma

Mebel D Souza Vs Mrs Cecilia Crasta