Dismissed

Sri H Sharath Kumar v. Smt Jayalakshmi Reddy

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2022WP/256/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Article 226/227 to quash an order of the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge rejecting an application to discard affidavit evidence of a witness for stating facts not in the written statement. The court refused interference, holding that final pleadings are not required for the preliminary evidence-cross-examination stage as the point can be taken at final arguments.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no interference with the impugned order of the Trial Court.

Sri H Sharath Kumar Vs Smt Jayalakshmi Reddy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.256 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

1 . SRI. H SHARATH KUMAR S/O LATE HARISCHANDRA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HIS REGISTERED GPA HOLDER SL. NO.4/SRI. H. RAJESH

¶8

2 . SRI. H. PUNEETH KUMAR S/O LATE HARISCHANDRA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HIS REGISTERED GPA HOLDER SL NO. 4/SRI. H. RAJESH

¶9

3 . SMT. H. RASHMI D/O LATE HARISCHANDRA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HER REGISTERED GPA HOLDER SL. NO.4/SRI. H. RAJESH

¶10

4 . SRI. H. RAJESH S/O LT HARISCHANDRA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶11

5 . SMT. H. SUREKA D/O LATE HARISHCHANDRA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶12

¶13

REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SL. No.4 SRI. H. RAJESH S/O LATE HARISCHANDRA

¶14

SL. No. 1-5 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 45, PERIANNA AGRAHARA NAIDU LAYOUT, RAJIV GANDHI ROAD, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU 560 072.

¶15

...PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA H, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

1 . SMT. JAYALAKSHMI REDDY W/O LATE S. NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶19

2 . SRI. N. SUNIL REDDY S/O LATE S. NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶20

RESPONDENT 1 AND 2 ARE R/AT NO. 280/3, REDDIES LAYOUT VARIETY FARM AND NURSERY BEML LAYOUT, R R NAGAR BENGALURU 560 098.

¶21

3 . SMT. TILAKAMANI W/O SRI SELVARAJ AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS NO.30, 11^TH B CROSS ROAD HOSAHALLI MAIN ROAD, PADARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU 560 026.

¶22

¶23

4 . SRI.B.H. SATISH KUMAR S/O LATE B.V. HONAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶24

5 . SMT. K.R. GEETHA W/O SRI.B.H. SATISH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶25

SL. No. 4 AND 5 ARE RESIDING AT NO.8, REDDY'S FARM AND LAYOUT BEML LAYOUT, III PHASE RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU 560 098.

¶26

6 . SMT. VANI KRISHNA PATIL W/O SRI. KRISHNA V. PATIL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶27

7 . SRI KRISHNA V PATIL S/O VASANTH RAO R PATIL AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶28

RESPONDENT No. 6 AND 7 ARE R/AT NO. 2501, 2^ND FLOOR, E BLOCK SAHAKARANAGAR KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU 560 092.

¶29

….RESPONDENTS

¶30

(NOTICE TO R-1 TO R-5 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 8.11.2021 ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE HONBLE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU (CCH-15) ON THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.11 FILED BY THE

¶32

¶33

PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 IN O.S.NO.3445/2020 AND ETC.

¶34

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

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

The petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 08.11.2021, passed on I.A.No.11 in O.S.No. 3445/2020 by the VIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-15), have filed this writ petition.

¶37

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

¶38

The petitioners have filed the suit for the relief of declaration. In the said suit, respondent Nos.6 and 7 have filed written statement. The Trial Court framed issues. Thereafter the case is posted for recording the evidence of petitioners. The petitioners have lead evidence and thereafter closed their side. The matter is posted for recording the evidence of respondents.

¶39

¶40

Respondent No.6 was examined as DW-2. When the matter was posted for the cross-examination of DW-2, the petitioners filed an application seeking to discard the affidavit evidence of DW-2 for mentioning additional averments which were not stated in the written statement. In support of the application, petitioner No.4 has filed an affidavit contending that respondent No.7 is an advocate and he is well aware of what is pleaded in the written statement. Further, on verification of the affidavit evidence filed by respondent No.6 before the Trial Court, more particularly at paragraph Nos.6, 7 and 8, the respondent No.6 went on discussing the deposition of PW-1 and the affidavit evidence is prepared like the written arguments on his behalf. Further, respondent No.7 ought to have stated the pleadings averred or stated in the written statement and no additional pleadings can be stated during the affidavit evidence

¶41

¶42

until and unless amendment to written statement is permitted. Hence on these grounds, petitioners have sought to discard the evidence of DW-2.

¶43

The said application was opposed by

¶44

respondents No.6 and 7 by filing statement of objections.

¶45

The Trial Court, after hearing the parties, has passed the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the petitioners. Hence this writ petition.

¶46

Heard learned counsel for petitioners.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

¶48

that respondent No.6, without any pleadings, has stated additional facts in the examination-in-chief, which is impermissible. Hence he submits that the Trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application filed to discard the evidence of DW-2. He

¶49

¶50

further submits that the Trial Court has not assigned any reasons while rejecting the said application. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶51

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

¶52

It is not in dispute that the petitioners have filed a suit for declaration and respondents No.6 and 7 have filed written statement. The Trial Court framed issues. Thereafter petitioners have lead evidence and closed their side. Respondent No.6 has filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. Further, when the case is posted for cross-examination of DW-2, petitioners have filed an application to discard the evidence of DW-2 on the ground that DW-2 has stated additional facts which were not pleaded in the written

¶53

¶54

statement. If any additional facts are stated in the evidence of DW-2 without pleading, the said point can be raised by the petitioners at the time of final arguments. It is settled law that any amount of evidence without pleadings, is of no use. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to urge the same at the time of final argument. Further, the said aspect was considered by the Trial Court and the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the petitioners could not point out the provision under which the evidence of DW-2 can be discarded. Hence the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶55

SD/JUDGE

¶56

Sri H Sharath Kumar v. Smt Jayalakshmi Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H Sharath Kumar v. Smt Jayalakshmi Reddy

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

Sri. B.S. Nagendra Vs Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Mrs Uma Amarnath Vs Mrs Pancharathnamma

Sri R Dharmesh Vs Sri Renukappa

Sri v Srinivasa Raju Vs M/S Ayathi Projects

Bangalore Technical Foundation Trust Vs Sri. Vijayakumar B M

Smt Padmavathi Vs Sri K Ashwath Since Deceased by His Lrs