Partly allowed

Basavaraj Bhalchandra Gireddi v. Shivabasu Balappa Handigund

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2023WP/112272/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court in a writ petition quashed the trial court order dismissing applications to reexamine a witness and produce documents. Petitioner allowed to reexamine on certified sale deeds, but summons application dismissed and petitioner ordered to pay costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order regarding applications 14 and 15 set aside and allowed; application 16 dismissed; petitioner ordered to pay costs of Rs. 2,500 to respondents.

Basavaraj Bhalchandra Gireddi Vs Shivabasu Balappa… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12988 WP No. 112272 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 112272 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

BASAVARAJ BHALCHANDRA GIREDDI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MUDALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI SIDDAPPA SAJJAN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SHIVABASU BALAPPA HANDIGUND,

¶14

AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MUDALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

¶15

ROHAN HADIMANI T Digitally signed by ROHAN HADIMANI T

¶16

LAXMAN BALAPPA HANDIGUND,

¶17

AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MUDALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.B. NAIK & SMT. P.G. NAIK, ADVOCATES FOR R1 AND R2)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON IA NO.14, 15 AND 16 DATED 30.11.2019 IN O.S.NO.251/2014 PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MUDALAGI, VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ALLOW THE IA NO.14, 15 AND 16 VIDE ANNEXURE-C,D AND E.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12988 WP No. 112272 of 2020

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in

¶25

O.S.No.251/2014 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Mudalagi. The suit is filed for obtaining injunction against the respondents herein from interfering with the peaceful possession of the properties by the petitioner. When the case was posted for arguments, the petitioner filed the applications in I.A.No.14 under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the ‘CPC’) to reexamine PW1, I.A.No.15 under Order 15 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the CPC for production of additional documents and I.A.No.16 under Order 16 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC to issue court summons to the manager of Syndicate Bank, Mundragi Branch. The said applications were made on the ground that the petitioner has filed a suit for permanent injunction and he is also required to establish his ownership over the properties and for that reason, he intends to produce the sale deeds and

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12988 WP No. 112272 of 2020

¶27

the said sale deeds are deposited with the Syndicate Bank as the same is mortgaged in favour of the bank and that the aforementioned documents are essential to be produced to prove his case. However, the said applications were dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the said applications are filed at a belated stage and are done with a view to protract the proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶28

The case of the petitioner is that, it is essential to produce the said documents and not producing the same would be fatal to his case and he could not produce the same in spite of his best efforts at the time of leading the evidence and in the interest of justice, the trial Court ought to have allowed the applications.

¶29

Per contra, the advocate for the respondents justifies the order passed by the trial Court and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12988 WP No. 112272 of 2020

¶31

4. Admittedly, the petitioner has failed to produce

¶32

the relevant documents at the time of his evidence. However, in the course of arguments, the advocate for the petitioner submits that the documents sought to be produced by him are essential for his case and inadvertently the certified copies of the sale deeds which could have been marked in lieu of the original sale deeds were not marked during the evidence of PW1. He also submits that he would get the necessary endorsement to the effect that the sale deeds have been deposited in the bank pursuant to the mortgage and the said endorsement will also be marked and undertakes to co-operate for early disposal of the case before the trial Court.

¶33

Admittedly, the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner before the trial Court are essential to his case. Hence, keeping in view of the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to allow the writ petition. However, as the petitioner has not been so

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12988 WP No. 112272 of 2020

¶35

diligent in conducting the case, it would be proper to impose some costs on him. Hence, the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(i) The impugned order insofar as it relates to I.A.No.14 filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC to re-examine PW1 and I.A.No.15 filed under Order 15 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the CPC for production of additional documents, is hereby set aside and I.A.Nos.14 and 15 filed in O.S.No.251/2014 by the petitioner herein before the Civil Judge, Mudalagi are hereby allowed and the plaintiff is permitted to reexamine PW1 only in respect of production of the certified copies of the sale deeds and the endorsement from the bank and if the same are marked before the trial Court and the defendant shall be permitted to cross-examine PW1.

¶38

(ii) The writ petition in respect of I.A.No.16 filed under Order 16 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC to issue court summons to the manager of Syndicate Bank, Mundragi Branch is hereby dismissed.

¶39

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12988 WP No. 112272 of 2020

¶40

(iii) The petitioner shall pay cost of Rs.2,500/- to the respondents by the next date of hearing before the trial Court.

¶41

(iv) The parties shall co-operate before the trial Court for early disposal of the original suit.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

RH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Basavaraj Bhalchandra Gireddi v. Shivabasu Balappa Handigund

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basavaraj Bhalchandra Gireddi v. Shivabasu Balappa Handigund

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

Mrs.Lavanya Narasimha Joshi Vs the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager

The Assistant Executive Engineer Vs Bibijan Bashasab Mulla

Bebijan Bashasab Mulla Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer (Elec)

Dr Susheela v Kerudi Vs Elctricity Ombudsman Bangalore

Sri. Ganesh Vs the Commissioner

Mamatha W/O Dr. Mahesh Umachagi Vs the Deputy Commissioner