The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed against an order rejecting applications to produce documents and reopen evidence in a specific performance suit. The court held that using court powers to fill lacunae after closing evidence is an abuse of process.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK.S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.2036 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
SRI. A. RADHAKRISHNA S/O LATE P. S. ANAND AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS M/S. DIVINE CONSTRUCTIONS OFFICE AT NO.205 BOGADI, 2ND STAGE MYSURU SOUTH MYSURU - 570 026
...PETITIONER
(By Sri. K. R. LINGARAJU)
AND:
2
4. SRI RAGHU S/O YELEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O
YELEGEHUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-570 026.
….RESPONDENTS
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 19.01.2022 PASSED BY THE I ADDL SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., MYSURU IN O.S.NO.381/2013 REJECTING THE IA NO. XXIV SEEKING PERMISSION TO PRODUCE THE DOCUEMNTS AND IA NO.XXV AND XXVI REOPENING THE EVIDENCE AND TO RECALL PW-1 FOR FURTHER EXAMINATION VIDE ANNEXURES-A AND B RESPECTIVELY ALLOW THE APPLICATION NOS.XXIV, XXV AND XXVI AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR 'PRELIMINARY HEARING' THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
O R D E R
The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2022 passed on I.A.Nos.24, 25 and 26 in O.S.No.381/2013 by I Additional Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Mysuru has filed this writ petition.
The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.381/2013 seeking for the relief of specific performance. In the said suit, the respondent appeared and filed the written statement. Thereafter, the trial Court framed the issues. The petitioner and respondents have lead the evidence and the case is posted for arguments. The petitioner filed an application for production of documents for re-opening the case and also to lead further examination-in-chief of PW.1. The said application was opposed by the respondents by filing the objections. The trial Court after hearing the arguments, on both side, rejected the applications filed by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.
4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner could not able to produce the documents because of his ill-health. He further submits that the trial Court allowed the application filed by the petitioner. He further submits that the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5
counsel appearing for the petitioner has addressed the argument in part and sought for an adjournment for further argument. The trial Court adjourned the matter for further argument of the petitioner. At that stage, the petitioner filed application for recalling, production of documents and also to lead further examination-in-chief. Prior to the filing of this applications, the petitioner has filed an application for production of document. The same came to be allowed and documents were taken on record and also filed an application for recalling of PW.1. The said application came to be allowed. PW.1 was recalled for the purpose of marking documents. Thereafter, the case is posed for arguments. At that stage, the petitioner has filed these three applications. The action of the petitioner filing applications after applications, amounts to abuse of process of law. The trial Court after considering the material on record and also relying on the judgment of this Court reported in 2012(2) KAR LAR 692 in the case of
Abdul Naveed Vs. Masabi Najam . This Court has held that, "It is a discretionary power of the Court trying the
6
suit with regard to recall the witness. The power of Court cannot be used to party to fill up a lacuna in his case". In the present case, the petitioner has produced the documents only with an intension to fill up the lacuna. The trial Court after considering the entire material on record is justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
ssb
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution regarding the trial court's dismissal of applications for production of documents and reopening of evidence.
Whether the petitioner's filing of applications to fill a lacuna in the case after initial evidence was closed amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting applications for production of documents and recalling a witness merely to fill lacunae in the petitioner's case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Abdul Naveed Vs. Masabi NajamReferred¶37
2012(2) KAR LAR 692
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. A. Radhakrishna
Sri Yelegowda
Smt. Mangalamma
Smt. Nagalakshmi
Sri Raghu
Smt. Putti
Ashok S. Kinagi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
