Disposed

Dr. Tatasaheb Pawadeppa Bangi, v. Sri Chamaraj Pawadeppa Bangi

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2023WP/100766/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court in W.P. 100766 of 2017 disposed of petition challenging order allowing 1st respondent to lead further evidence and produce documents. Court directed trial court to consider only relevant documents and dispose of suit within six months without interfering with impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without interfering with impugned order. Trial court directed to consider only relevant documents and dispose suit within six months.

Dr. Tatasaheb Pawadeppa Bangi, Vs Sri… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 100766 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 100766 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DR. TATASAHEB PAWADEPPA BANGI, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/AT "KAYAK", CHANNAMMA NAGAR, JAMKHANDI, DIST BAGALKOTE.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR SRI.H M DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

SRI CHAMARAJ PAWADEPPA BANGI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE AND AGRICULTURE, R/AT BANASHAKARI NAGAR, DHARWAD-580008.

¶12

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

¶13

SRI BALASAHEB PAWADEPPA BANGI, AGED 80 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/AT HORAMAVU, BENGALURU-43.

¶14

SRI MALLIKARJUN PAWADEPPA BANGI, AGED 63 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT B-120, KPWD QUARTERS, F-2 ROAD, JEEVANBEEMA NAGAR, BENGALURU-75.

¶15

SMT DAKSHAYANI W/O CHANNAPPA ANDANI, AGED 76 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

¶16

¶17

WP No. 100766 of 2017

¶18

R/AT VISHWA, NO.578, SHIVABASAVA NAGAR, BELAGAVI-01.

¶19

SMT SHAILAJA W/O SOMANATH SOLAPURE, AGED 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/AT 391/A, 8TH CROSS, RMV EXTENSION, SADASHIV NAGAR, BENGALURU-80.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. S.L.MATTI, ADV. FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2-R5 DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JAMKHANDI PASSED IN CIVIL MISC.NO.7 OF 2013 DATED:07.01.2017 ON I.A.NO.VII, VIII AND IX COPY AS PER ANNEXURE-R AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND DISMISS THE APPLICATIONS & ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Notice to respondents 2 to 5 are dispensed with at the risk of the petitioner.

¶26

This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 07.01.2017 passed on I.A.Nos.7, 8 and 9 filed by the 1^st respondent seeking permission to lead further evidence, seeking recall of PW-1 for further cross-examination and seeking

¶27

¶28

WP No. 100766 of 2017

¶29

permission to produce the documents respectively, which are allowed by the trial court.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and perused the material on record.

¶31

The material on record discloses that the 1^st respondent having instituted the suit in O.S.No.86/2006, the same came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on account of non appearance of the 1^st respondent – plaintiff on 06.06.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the 1^st respondent has preferred Misc.No.7/2013 stating that he was examined himself as PW-1 and was examined by the 3^rd defendant - 3^rd respondent in the Misc.proceedings. At this stage, the 1^st respondent filed the instant applications seeking permission to lead further evidence and to produce certain documents. The said applications having been allowed by the impugned order, the petitioner is before this court by way of the present petition.

¶32

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, the main contention of the petitioner is that the documents sought to the produced are irrelevant and immaterial for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties and

¶33

¶34

WP No. 100766 of 2017

¶35

consequently, the trial court fell in error in allowing the said applications filed by the 1^st respondent seeking permission to produce the documents and the same deserves to be set aside.

¶36

Learned counsel for the 1^st respondent in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the statement of objections, would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

A perusal of the impugned order will clearly indicate that the same does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity that has occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam vs. Chabbi Nath – (2015) 5 SCC 473 . However, in order to allay the apprehension of the petitioner that certain irrelevant / immaterial documents have been produced by the 1^st respondent, it is just and appropriate to direct the trial court to consider only the relevant documents produced by both sides and discard the remaining documents which are not relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the application filed under Order 9 Rule 4 of CPC.

¶38

¶39

WP No. 100766 of 2017

¶40

Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands

¶41

disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

In view of disposal of the petition, interim application, if any

¶43

does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed.

¶44

SD/JUDGE

¶45

SRL

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71

Dr. Tatasaheb Pawadeppa Bangi, v. Sri Chamaraj Pawadeppa Bangi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Tatasaheb Pawadeppa Bangi, v. Sri Chamaraj Pawadeppa Bangi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri.Nimbenna S/O Siddalingappa Devangavi Vs the Secretary

Prasad Talwar S/O Ashok Talwar Vs University of Agricultural Sciences

Shrinivas S/O Shankar Kattimani Vs the State of Karnataka

Bharatkumar S/O Indurao Rangole Vs Sharadkumar S/O Indurao Rangole

Shri Harishganta S/O Sathyanarayan G Vs the State of Karnataka

V Rajashekar @ Shekar S/O Timmappa Vs the State of Karnataka