Allowed

Mr S K Chand Basha v. Mr K Taj

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2022WP/640/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filed by a defendant in a 2009 recovery suit. The court set aside the trial court's dismissal of applications to produce late documents. Under the principle of natural justice, the petitioner was permitted to submit the documents after paying a penalty of Rs. 15,000 to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Applications to produce documents were allowed conditional upon payment of Rs. 15,000 to the respondent and without further adjournment.

Mr S K Chand Basha Vs Mr K Taj — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.640 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

MR. S.K. CHAND BASHA S/O LATE ABDUL RAWOOF AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.1/10, ‘CHAND VILLA’, MOUNTAIN ROAD, 1^ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. JAGANNATHAN P., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

MR. K. TAJ S/O LATE KHUDDUS SAHEB AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.87, 4^TH CROSS, WILLIAMS TOWN, BENGALURU-560 046.

¶11

….RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. RAGHUNATH M.D., ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMON ORDER DATD 13^TH DECEMBER, 2021 ON IA NO’S.11 TO 13 IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.25599 OF 2009 PASSED BY THE XIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING IA.NO’S.11 TO 13 AT

¶14

¶15

ANNEXURE-A BY ALLOWING THE PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTS AND ADJUDICATE THE MATTER ON MERITS; AND ETC.

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Writ petition is filed by the defendant in Original Suit No.25599 of 2009 on the file of the XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall unit, Bengaluru (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), challenging the order dated 13^th December, 2021 passed on IAs.11 to 13, dismissing the applications.

¶19

Perusal of the writ petition would indicate that the plaintiff has filed suit for recovery based on the Agreement dated 24^th September, 2007. In the said suit, when the matter was posted for arguments on the side of defendant/petitioner herein, the defendant has filed three applications in IA.11 under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code; IA.12 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code to reopen and recall the order dated 24^th September,2021; and IA.13 under Order VIII Rule 8(A)(2) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking

¶20

¶21

permission to produce certain documents to mark before the Court. These said applications were resisted by the plaintiff. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, by impugned order dated 13^th December, 2021, dismissed all the three application. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant has presented this writ petition.

¶22

I have heard Sri. Jagannathan P., learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. Raghunath M.D., learned counsel appearing for respondent.

¶23

Sri. Jagannathan P., learned counsel appearing for petitioners, invited the attention of the Court to the affidavit filed in the applications and submits that those documents were not available at the time of the evidence of the defendant. Therefore, those documents are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the suit. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.

¶24

Per contra, Sri. Raghunath M.D., learned counsel appearing for respondent, invited the attention of the Court to the list of dates in the Order sheet maintained by the trial Court

¶25

¶26

and submits that the said applications have been filed before the trial Court on the date of arguments and defendant is protracting the proceedings before the trial Court. He further contended that the suit is of the year 2009, seeking relief of recovery under the Sale agreement. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶27

In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the grounds urged in the Memorandum of writ petition as well as finding recorded by the trial Court. Undisputably, suit is filed seeking recovery under the Sale Agreement. The grievance of the defendant is that he sought to produce certain documents in support of the dispute as against the Bhavasara Kshathriya Samaja i.e, the subject matter of Agreement of Sale entered into between himself and the plaintiff. On careful consideration of the affidavit would indicate that those documents were not available with the defendant at the time of the evidence. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration that, an opportunity be given to the defendant to address his grievance before the

¶28

¶29

trial Court with the aid of those documents, I am of the view that the aforementioned applications in IAs.11 to 13 filed by the defendant are required to be allowed providing a last opportunity to the defendant to produce those documents and to give evidence before the trial Court.

¶30

However, I find force in the submission made by Sri. Raghunath. M.D, learned counsel appearing for respondent with regard to delay in filing those documents. In order to compensate the plaintiff, I am of the view that, since the suit is of the year 2009, applications be allowed with cost of Rs.15,000/- to be payable by the defendant/petitioner herein to the plaintiff/respondent herein before marking those documents before the trial Court. It is also made clear that the defendant/petitioner herein cannot seek further adjournments in the matter. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

ARK

Mr S K Chand Basha v. Mr K Taj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr S K Chand Basha v. Mr K Taj

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

Mr. Nandlal T. Nandwani Vs Smt. Komala

Sri S Ketan Vs Smt S Sunandamma

E Indrakumar Vs Kudligi Chowdappa

Radhamma Vs Satyanarayana

Kariyappa Vs Smt. Mangalamma

Sri Mahesh Kumar Vs Sri Venkataramanappa