Partly allowed

Sri R Bhaskar v. Sri K Karpagarajan

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2022WP/18168/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this writ petition in part, quashing the additional judge's order rejecting applications Nos.5 and 6 for reopening the case to lead further evidence, while maintaining the order rejecting application No.7 since the respondent had already produced a bank pass book.

What did the court decide?

I.A.Nos.5 and 6 allowed to reopen case and lead further evidence; I.A.No.7 order maintained.

Sri R Bhaskar Vs Sri K Karpagarajan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.18168 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN: SRI. R BHASKAR S/O K. RAJU CHETTIAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.12/1, THAMARAI ILLAM, HIRUVALLUVARNAGAR, ODAKKADU, THIRUPPUR TALUK, TAMILNADU.

¶7

….PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SMT. POOJA NAGARI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANJAY KRISHNA V, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SRI. K KARPAGARAJAN S/O R. KANAKARAJ, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, NO.19/3, II "A" MAIN ROAD, 6^TH CROSS, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, BANGALORE-560 021.

¶11

….RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. A. M. SURYA PRAKASH AND SRI. P. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATES)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMON ORDER PASSED ON IA.NOS.V, VI & VII DATED 16.3.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALOER IN O.S.NO.3461/2010 VIDE ANNEX-K.

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 16.3.2016 passed on I.A.Nos.5 to 7 passed by the XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.3461/2010 has filed the present writ petition.

¶18

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

¶19

The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.3461/2010 for recovery of money of a sum of Rs.5,31,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the petitioner.

¶20

2.1. In the said suit, the petitioner/defendant appeared and filed the written statement. The Trial Court framed the issues. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff was examined as PW1 and he was

¶21

¶22

cross examined. Thereafter, the matter was posted for defendant's evidence i.e. the petitioner's evidence. The petitioner was examined as DW1 and he was partly cross examined. As there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner/defendant and his counsel, further cross examination of DW1 was taken as 'nil' and the matter was posted for argument.

¶23

2.2. When the matter was posted for arguments, the petitioner filed applications for reopening the case seeking permission to examine and to lead further evidence of petitioner and also to call upon the respondent to produce document. The said applications are numbered as I.A.Nos.5 to 7.

¶24

2.3. The said applications was opposed by the respondent by filing objections. The Trial Court after hearing the parties, rejected the applications filed by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

¶25

¶26

Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner. She further submits that the Trial Court ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to reopen the case and permit the petitioner to lead further evidence in support of the defence of the petitioner. She further submits that the Trial Court has not provided an opportunity to lead further evidence. Hence, on these grounds she prays to allow the writ petition.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent remained absent. Hence, his argument is taken as 'nil'.

¶29

Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶30

¶31

It is not in dispute that the respondent has

¶32

filed the suit for recovery of money against the petitioner. The petitioner filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. Respondent was examined as PW1 and closed his side. Thereafter, the matter was posted for defendant's evidence. The petitioner was examined DW1 and he was partly cross examined. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for further cross examination of DW1. There was no representation on behalf of the defendant. The Trial Court took the further cross examination of DW1 as nil and thereafter without providing opportunity for further evidence has posted the matter for arguments.

¶33

The petitioner is intending to lead further

¶34

evidence in support of the defence. The Trial Court without providing opportunity to the petitioner has posted the matter for arguments. The Trial Court

¶35

¶36

without properly appreciating the material on record has rejected the applications filed by the petitioner solely on the ground that the matter was posted for arguments.

¶37

The petitioner has produced a copy of the order sheet. A perusal of the copy of the order sheet discloses that no sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner to lead further evidence. Hence, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court has committed an error in rejecting I.A Nos.5 and 6.

¶38

The Trial Court has rejected I.A.7 without an observation that the respondent has already furnished bank pass book in order to substantiate his case.

¶39

When the respondent has already produced the bank pass book in order to substantiate his case, there is no reason to file I.A.7 to call for documents from the respondent. Hence, the Trial Court is

¶40

¶41

justified in rejecting I.A.7. As already observed, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court has committed an error in rejecting I.A.Nos.5 and 6 and was justified in rejecting I.A.7.

¶42

In view of the above discussion, the

¶43

following order is passed :

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i) The writ petition is allowed in part;

¶46

ii) I.A.Nos.5 and 6 are allowed. However, insofar as I.A.No.7 is concerned, the said order is maintained.

¶47

SD/JUDGE

¶48

Sri R Bhaskar v. Sri K Karpagarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R Bhaskar v. Sri K Karpagarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K Vani Srinivas Vs Smt Nalinakshi

Mrs. Shoba Karthigeyan Vs Mr. Raja B

Sri N Girish Singh Vs Sri Umapathi

Nakul L Vs v Lokesh

Sri T B Prabhakara Vs Sri Rama Prasad T B

Sri Balakrishna Jois Vs Karya Nirata Patrakartara Sangha