Allowed

Rajanna v. Smt. Venkatanarasamma

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2022WP/18567/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of applications to reopen a civil suit and examine additional witnesses. The Court held that the Trial Court erred in relying solely on delay, permitting further evidence as no injustice would occur.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; I.A.Nos. 10 and 11 allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 15,000/- to respondent No.2.

Rajanna Vs Smt. Venkatanarasamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.18567 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

1 . RAJANNA S/O. VENKATASHAMY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT SONNASETTY HALLI, CHINTAMANI-563 123,

¶8

2 . KAMALAMMA S/O. VENKATASHAMY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

¶9

3 . SRINIVASAPPA S/O. VENKATASHAMY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶10

4 . PRABHGAKAR S/O. VENKATASHAMY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶11

5 . SHIVAPPA S/O. VENKATASHAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶12

6 . VISWANATH S/O. VENKATASHAMY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶13

¶14

7 . KRISHNAPPA S/O. VENKATASHAMY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶15

THE PETITIONERS No.2 TO 7 ARE R/AT MOGALA HOBLI, CHELDIGANAHALLI PANCHAYATH, KASABA HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.

¶16

...PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. CHANDRA MOHAN J G, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

1 . SMT. VENKATANARASAMMA W/O. GANGULAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT GOWNAPALLI, ROYAL PAD HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.

¶20

2 . K. MANJUNATH

¶21

S/O. K.V. MUNIVENKATAPPA,

¶22

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT N.R. EXTENSION, CHINTHAMANI-563 123.

¶23

….RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. V MUNIRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-2

¶25

VIDE ORDER DATED 27.04.2016, NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,. CHINTHAMANI, ON APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN I.A.10 UNDER SEC.151 OF CPC FOR

¶27

¶28

REOPENING THE CASE AND I.A.11 UNDER ORDER XVI RULE 1 & 2 A/W WITNESS LIST, IN O.S.261/2007 DATED 01.03.2016 AT ANNEX-A & B TO THE PETITION, ALLOW THE APPLICATION.

¶29

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

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The petitioners being aggrieved by the orders dated 01.03.2016, passed on I.A.Nos.10 and 11 in O.S.No.261/2007 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Chintamani, have filed this writ petition.

¶32

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition

¶33

are as under:

¶34

The petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.261/2007 for the relief of partition and separate possession. In the said suit, respondents filed written statement. Trial Court framed issues. Thereafter matter was posted for petitioners' evidence. The petitioner No.7 was examined as PW-1 and closed his side. Thereafter matter was posted for respondents'

¶35

¶36

evidence and after conclusion of the evidence of respondents, matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, petitioners filed applications seeking permission to reopen the case and also for examining the witnesses as per the witness list furnished by the petitioners. In support of the applications, petitioners filed affidavits contending that the petitioners have not examined their witnesses though they have filed list of witnesses and they undertake to examine the witnesses on the next date of hearing. The said applications were opposed by respondent No.2. The Trial Court, after hearing both sides, rejected the applications. Hence this writ petition.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

¶39

that the Trial Court has not provided an opportunity to

¶40

¶41

the petitioners to lead further evidence in support of their case. He further submits that the Trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the applications solely on the ground of delay and laches. He further submits that that the parties should be given full opportunity to put forth their case and parties should not be thrown out at the threshold on technical grounds. He further submits that the Trial Court has not assigned proper reasons in rejecting the applications. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶42

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the impugned orders.

¶43

Perused the records and considered the

¶44

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶45

It is not in dispute that the petitioners have

¶46

filed a suit for partition and separate possession. Respondents have filed written statement. Petitioner

¶47

¶48

No.7 was examined as PW-1 and he was crossexamined. The Trial Court, without posting the matter for further evidence of petitioners, has closed the side of petitioners and posted the matter for respondents' evidence. If the petitioners are permitted to lead further evidence, no injustice would be caused to the respondents. Respondent No.2 can be compensated in terms of money. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners.

¶49

In view of the discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

The writ petition is allowed.

¶52

The impugned orders are set aside. Consequently, I.A.Nos.10 and 11 are allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.15,000/-.

¶53

¶54

The petitioners shall pay the cost of Rs.15,000/- to respondent No.2 before the Trial Court, within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶55

As the suit is of the year 2007, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Further, parties are directed to cooperate with the Trial Court for early disposal.

¶56

SD/JUDGE

¶57

Rajanna v. Smt. Venkatanarasamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajanna v. Smt. Venkatanarasamma

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

Nakul L Vs v Lokesh

Sri T B Prabhakara Vs Sri Rama Prasad T B

Sri R Bhaskar Vs Sri K Karpagarajan

Jayashankar Vs Smt Puttamma

Smt. M R Saroja Vs Smt. Hanumakka

Mr Shekhara Shetty Vs Mr Rukmayya Shetty