Allowed

Sri. Kandi Rami Reddy S/O Kandi Dodda Timma Reddy v. Sri. P. Nagi Reddy S/O Polike Venkataramanappa

Karnataka HC13 Feb 2023WP/100084/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Court allowed a petition to set aside the trial court order rejecting applications to reopen the case, recall a witness, and produce electronic evidence. The High Court held that entitlement to additional evidence must be decided at the final disposal stage, not via a hyper-technical interim rejection.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 21.11.2022 set aside; I.A.Nos.39, 40, and 41 allowed; suit to be disposed of within six months.

Sri. Kandi Rami Reddy S/O Kandi Dodda Timma Reddy… — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 100084 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 100084 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. KANDI RAMI REDDY, S/O KANDI DODDA TIMMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/O SHANKAR BANDA VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI T.M.NADAF, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. P.NAGI REDDY, S/O POLIKE VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/O SHANKAR BANDA VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI V.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, (A) TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT BALLARI, IN O.S.NO.21/2013. (B) TO QUASH THE COMMON ORDER DATED 21.11.2022 REJECTING THE I.A.NOS.39,40 AND 41 FILED BY THE PETITIONER, PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BALLARI, IN O.S.NO.21/2013, VIDE ANNEXURE-L, BY ISSUING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR WRITS AS THIS HON BLE COURT MAY DEEMS FIT TO ISSUE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶17

¶18

WP No. 100084 of 2023

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 21.11.2022 passed on I.A.Nos.39, 40 and 41 in O.S.No.21/2013 on the file of II Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Ballari whereby the aforesaid applications filed by the petitioner under Section 151 C.P.C. to reopen the case, under Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C. to recall PW1 and under Section 65(b) of the Evidence Act for permission to produce electronic evidence were rejected by the trial Court.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶23

The material on record discloses that the petitionerplaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against respondentdefendant for specific performance and for other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit is being contested by the respondent-defendant. During the course of his evidence, the respondent-defendant who examined himself as D1 marked several documents including Ex.D26 in support of his defence. Subsequent to the cross-

¶24

¶25

WP No. 100084 of 2023

¶26

examination of DW1, the petitioner-plaintiff filed the instant applications seeking to reopen the case, to recall PW1 (plaintiff) and for production of electronic evidence, interalia contending that in order to disprove Ex.D26, it was necessary to recall PW1 and adduce further evidence. The said applications having been

¶27

opposed by the respondent-defendant, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting I.A.Nos.39 to 41, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present petition.

¶28

A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the trial Court has adopted hyper technical approach and proceeded to examine merits/demerits and further evidence sought to be adduced by the plaintiff-petitioner without appreciating that the admissibility, proof etc., of the additional evidence will have to be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit and not at the stage of considering the instant applications and consequently, the impugned order has occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. In the result, I pass the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

i. The petition is allowed.

¶31

¶32

WP No. 100084 of 2023

¶33

ii. The impugned order dated 21.11.2022 is hereby set aside and I.A.Nos.39, 40 and 41 are allowed.

¶34

iii. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2013, the trial Court is directed to dispose off the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

CLK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Sri. Kandi Rami Reddy S/O Kandi Dodda Timma Reddy v. Sri. P. Nagi Reddy S/O Polike Venkataramanappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Kandi Rami Reddy S/O Kandi Dodda Timma Reddy v. Sri. P. Nagi Reddy S/O Polike Venkataramanappa

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

Basanagouda Shivanagouda Siddapur Vs the Government of India

Rajani Gaded D/O. Devendrappa W/O. Abhay Kadolkar Vs the State of Karnataka

Jayaram Angadi S/O Veerupaksha Angadi Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Mallanagouda Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Geeta W/O Ashok Tubachi Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Manjamma W/O Burunagouda Bhangi Vs Pragati Gramin Bank