Dismissed

Sri.K.v.Doddaiah v. Sri.B.Lakshmaiah

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2022WP/5580/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, in a writ petition, dismissed the petitioners' challenge against the Civil Judge's order rejecting applications to reopen a specific performance suit led to abuse of process. The Court held the lower court correctly rejected the applications as the petitioners lacked bona fides and intended to protract proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned order upholding the rejection of applications to reopen the case stands affirmed.

Sri.K.v.Doddaiah Vs Sri.B.Lakshmaiah — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 5580 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.K.V.DODDAIAH S/O SRI B V VENKATAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS

¶9

1(a). SMT GOWRAMMA W/O LATE K V DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDENTS OF DOODIHADLU MARUTHI KALYANAMANTAPA ROAD KORATAGERE KASABA KORATAGERE TUMKUR DISTRICT-572129

¶10

1(b). SRI PRASANNA S/O LATE K V DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDENTS OF DOODIHADLU MARUTHI KALYANAMANTAPA ROAD KORATAGERE KASABA KORATAGERE TUMKUR DISTRICT-572129

¶11

1(c). D KUSUMA D/O LATE K V DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDENTS OF DOODIHADLU MARUTHI KALYANAMANTAPA ROAD KORATAGERE KASABA KORATAGERE TUMKUR DISTRICT-572129

¶12

¶13

SMT D HEMALATHA W/O K C NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT KYATHAVARA VILLAGE HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572129 ...PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI.PRAKASH.M PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND

¶15

SRI.B.LAKSHMAIAH S/O LATE BETTADAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY LRS

¶16

1(a). SMT ANASUYAMMA D/O LATE B LAKSHMAIAH W/O LATE NARYAANAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS WORKING AT TALUKA OFFICE KORATAGERE, KORATAGERE TUMKUR DISTRICT-572129.

¶17

1(b). PRAKASH S/O LATE B LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT BODABANDENAHALLI KASABA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572129

¶18

1(c). SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O ASHWATHAPPA D/O B LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT AMARAVATHI VILLAGE MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572132.

¶19

¶20

1(d). SRI NAGARAJA B L S/O LATE B LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT OPP TALUK OFFICE KORATAGERE TUMKUR DISTRICT-572129.

¶21

1(e). SRI MANJUNATH S/O LATE B LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT SIRA GATE TUMKUR CITY TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101.

¶22

SRI B L RAJU S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶23

2(a). SMT VANAJAKSHI W/O LATE B L RAJU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT BODDABANDENAHALLY VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572129.

¶24

2(b). KUMARI MEGHANA D/O LATE B L RAJU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESIDING AT BODDABANDENAHALLY VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572129.

¶25

2(c). KUMARI HEMA D/O LATE B L RAJU AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT BODDABANDENAHALLY VILLAGE

¶26

¶27

KASABA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572129.

¶28

...RESPONDENTS

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KORATAGERE ON IAs UNDER SECTION 051 OF CPC DTD 17.01.2022 IN O.S.NO.56/2009, VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,

¶30

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

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiffs feeling aggrieved by the common order dated 17.01.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Koratagere passed on two applications under Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.56/2009, vide Annexure-G.

¶33

Petitioners/plaintiffs have instituted the suit in O.S.No.56/2009, seeking relief of specific performance of contract. The petitioners have let in evidence and

¶34

¶35

have also produced documentary evidence.

¶36

Respondents/defendants to counter the claim have also let in rebuttal evidence. When the matter was set down for arguments, the present petitioners have filed two applications. The learned Judge has rejected both the applications. While rejecting the applications, the learned Judge was of the view, that petitioners/plaintiffs have taken sufficient time to lead their evidence and therefore, Court was of the view that when the matter is set down for arguments, these two applications cannot be entertained.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶38

Perused the order under challenge. The suit is of the year 2001. At the first instance, petitioners did not furnish list of witnesses and therefore, further evidence was taken as ‘nil’. Thereafter plaintiffs filed an application with witness list. The said application

¶39

¶40

was allowed on cost. After the applications were allowed, the petitioners/plaintiffs failed to keep the witnesses present. Therefore, the Court was again compelled to take as no further evidence.

¶41

The petitioners/plaintiffs again filed applications requesting the Court to recall the order and permit the petitioners/plaintiffs to lead further evidence. The said application was also allowed on cost of `200/-. Thereafter, the petitioner has closed his evidence after examination his witnesses. The defendant also let in evidence and closed their side. Now, again when the matter is set down for arguments, petitioners/plaintiffs have again filed applications to reopen the case and permit petitioners/plaintiffs to lead further evidence. The applications lack bona fide. These applications are filed with an intention to protract the hearing of the suit. It is nothing but abuse of process. The learned Judge has rightly

¶42

¶43

rejected the applications. I do not find any error in the order under challenge.

¶44

Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed .

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

HDK

Sri.K.v.Doddaiah v. Sri.B.Lakshmaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.K.v.Doddaiah v. Sri.B.Lakshmaiah

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

Jayantha Pai S Vs Prerana Motors Pvt. Ltd.

Sri Byrareddy Vs Sri Kempareddy

Sri Devendra Vs Smt Vinodamma

K R Venkataramaiah Vs K v Krishnappa

K v Krishnappa Vs Sri Anjaneya Murthy

Mrs B N Pushpa Kumari Vs Mr L Mallesh