Allowed

Sri. G Rangaswamy v. Smt Saroja

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2022WP/12913/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Article 227 to quash an order rejecting applications to reopen a civil suit, recall a witness, and produce additional documents. The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit within three months while mandatory costs were directed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; applications permitted allowing reopening of case, recall of witness DW.1, and leave to produce documents subject to payment of Rs.20,000 costs to respondents.

Sri. G Rangaswamy Vs Smt Saroja — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.12913/2022 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI. G. RANGASWAMY SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS & ORS

¶8

SMT CHAMAPAKAVATHI W/O SRI LATE G RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶9

SRI KUMARASWAMY S/O SRI LATE G RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶10

PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT NO 94, 7^TH CROSS HOSAKEREHALLI BSK III STAGE BEGALURU - 560085.

¶11

SRI JAYANNA S/O LATE V MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 111/11 4^TH CROSS KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT BSK III STAGE BENGALURU - 560085.

¶12

... PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. SUNIL S RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

AND :

¶16

SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶17

SMT SAROJA W/O LATE T GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶18

SRI S GIRISH S/O LATE T GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶19

SRI G JAGADISH S/O LATE T GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶20

SRI G CHETHAN S/O LATE T GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶21

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO 26, 17^TH MAIN, 8^TH CROSS MUNESHWARA BLOCK BENGALURU -560026.

¶22

SRI KRISHNAM RAJU S/O KALYAN RAJU RESIDING AT NO 401 5^TH MAIN ROAD NAGENDRA BLOCK SRINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 050.

¶23

SRI BALARAJU FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN RESIDING AT NO 39 SIRSI ROAD CHAMRAJPET

¶24

¶25

BENGALURU - 560 018.

¶26

SRI MAHADEVAIAH S/O BHEERAIAH RESIDING AT NO 39 SIRSI ROAD CHAMRAJPET BENGALURU- 560 018.

¶27

SRI GANGADHAR S/O VEERABHADRAIAH R/AT HOSAKEREHALLI VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BSK 3^RD STAGE BENGALURU- 560 061.

¶28

SRI MUTHAIAH S/O HOMEGOWDA RESIDING AT NO 22 20^TH CROSS, 50 FEET ROAD NAGENDRA BLOCK SRI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 050.

¶29

SRI RENUKAPPA FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN RESIDING AT NO 9 HOSAKEREHALLI VILLAGE BSK 3^RD STAGE BENGALURU - 560 085. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.NISHANTH A.V., AND SRI.KARTHIK.C, ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO R4; VIDE ORDER DATED 03.09.2022; NOTICE TO R5 TO R10 IS DISPENESED WITH)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.06.2022 FOUND AT ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY PASS NECESSARY ORDER TO ALLOW IA NO.32 TO 37 ON THE FILE OF VII ADDL.

¶31

¶32

CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN OS.NO.2843/1999. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

The petition is listed for orders on IA.2/2021 but

¶35

given the context of the controversy in the present petition, Sri Sunil S. Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Nishanth A.V., the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, are heard for final disposal.

¶36

This petition is by some of the defendants in O.S.No.2843/1999 on the file of the VII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (For short, 'the civil Court' ). The petitioners have impugned the civil Court's order dated 17.06.2022.

¶37

The civil Court by the impugned order has rejected the petitioners' series of applications viz .,

¶38

¶39

IAs.32 to 37. The petitioners' applications are essentially for reopening of the case; to recall their witness [DW.1] and for leave to produce certain additional documents. There is no dispute that these applications are filed when the civil Court was hearing the learned counsels on merits for final judgment and in fact, the civil Court has rejected the applications on the ground of delay. The civil Court has observed that after the petitioners' witness is cross-examined, the additional documents, which are essentially copies of the powers of attorney obtained under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 [for short 'the RTI Act '] have been secured and these could be to fill up the lacuna.

¶40

The suit is for permanent injunction in respect of certain residential plots which are part of the land in Sy.No.86/1 of Hoskerehalli village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. It is undisputed that the

¶41

¶42

original owner of this larger land has executed powers of attorney for certain portions of this larger land, and both the petitioners - defendants No.[1a], [1b] and 2 and the respondents -plaintiffs No.1[a] to [d] claim under the powers of attorney so executed by the undisputed owner of the larger land. There is undeniable delay in filing the documents and as such, the civil Court could be justified in its opinion, but the overarching approach must be to enable complete adjudication with all the material being brought on record. The Courts must necessarily endeavour to decide the suit on merits. Therefore, this Court must intervene, and the petitioners must be put on terms including the costs payable. Hence, the following

¶43

ORDER

¶44

[a] The petition is allowed, and the impugned

¶45

order is quashed allowing the petitioners' applications permitting reopening of the case and recalling DW.1 for further evidence with leave to produce documents now

¶46

¶47

filed subject to paying the plaintiffs - respondents a cost of Rs.20,000/- on the next date of hearing.

¶48

[b] The petitioners shall close their evidence within the first 15 [fifteen] days of the hearing of the suit before the civil Court after this order. The parties shall also assist and cooperate with the civil Court in expeditious disposal, and the civil Court shall under all circumstances dispose of the suit within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶49

SD/JUDGE

¶50

Sri. G Rangaswamy v. Smt Saroja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. G Rangaswamy v. Smt Saroja

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 Narayanamma Vs Sri T N Chandraiah

Venkatachalappa Vs Smt.Ashwathamma

Sri S Ramesha Vs M/S Margadarsi Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd.

Sri Mahesh Vs Sri B K Hindushekar

Sri.H.C.Guruswamappa Vs Smt.Nagamma

H G Mouneshwarappa Vs Sadashivappa