Dismissed

Shri. G. R. Srinivas Reddy @ Babu v. Smt. Rekha Rai Hamilton

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2023WP/18113/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment is a Writ Petition Article 226/227 CDNR to dismiss an Order dated 02.04.2019 passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural, rejecting applications to re-open evidence in a 2004 suit. The writ court held that as parties had earlier filed identical applications which were rejected, allowing fresh ones would prolong litigation without valid new reasons.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissing I.A. Nos. 36 and 37 was upheld. The writ petition was dismissed.

Shri. G. R. Srinivas Reddy @ Babu Vs Smt. Rekha… — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 18113 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 18113 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI. G. R. SRINIVAS REDDY @ BABU S/O. LATE G. A. RAMASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT GUNJOOR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 087.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI DHRUVA KUMARA D N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SMT. REKHA RAI HAMILTON W/O. LATE JOHN S. HAMILTON, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.511, CARLTON TOWERS, NO.1, AIRPORT ROAD, BENGALURU-560 008.

¶14

SMT. JUTIKA B. MIRJI W/O. SHRI. BHUSHAN MIRJI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT DEEPAK BUILDING, LAW COLLEGE ROAD, HINDWADI, BELAGAVI - 590 011.

¶15

¶16

WP No. 18113 of 2019

¶17

REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SMT. REKHA RAI HAMILTON

¶18

SHRI. N. M. THAKKAR S/O. SHRI. M.V. THAKKAR, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT ARUPPUKOTTAI ROAD, (AIRPORT ROAD), PERUNGUDI, MADURAI-625 022, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SHRI. R. SAMPATH RAJKUMAR NAIDU.

¶19

SMT. APARNA MANI W/O. SRI. RAJANISH RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO. HIG 812, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU-560 064. REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI. RAJANISH RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O. SRI. P. RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.45, ROHAN ASHIMA, SY. NO.84, KUNDALAHALLI, NEAR RYAN SCHOOL, BENGALURU-560 037.

¶20

SHRI. S. V. THYAGARAJ S/O. SHRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT SIDDAPURA VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 087.

¶21

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA,

¶22

3 - WP No. 18113 of 2019

¶23

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT SIDDAPURA VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 087.

¶24

SHRI. NARAYANASWAMY GOWDA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS, SMT. VENKATAMMA, W/O. LATE NARAYANASWAMY GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT SIDDAPURA VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 087.

¶25

SHRI. RANJAN SAIN S/O. SHRI. KANWAR SAIN, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT B-3, SWAPNALLOK, NO.28, AGA ABBAS ALI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 042.

¶26

SHRI. K. G. KODANDARAMAIAH S/O. LATE V. GIDDANNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, GROUND FLOOR, MANJULA ENTERPRISED, BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034.

¶27

SHRI. GOVINDACHARY S/O. SHRI. DASACHARY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT GROUND FLOOR, 112, OXFORD TOWERS, 132, AIRPORT ROAD, KODIHALLI, BENGALURU-560 017.

¶28

SHRI. V. MUNIRAJU S/O. SHRI. VENKATAGIRIAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶29

¶30

WP No. 18113 of 2019

¶31

R/AT IBLUR VILLAGE, AGARA POST, BENGALURU-560 034.

¶32

… RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. ARUN PONNAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 & R8; R9 - SERVED; V/O DATED 05.07.2019 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R4 TO R11 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.04.2019 IN O.S.NO.1518 OF 2004 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRCT AT BENGALURU, DISMISSING I.A.NO.37/2019 FILED UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 AND I.A.NO.36/2019 FILED U/S 151 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND TO ALLOW I.A.NO.37/2019 FILED UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 AND I.A.NO.36/2019 FILED U/S 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AND ETC.

¶35

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

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The defendant no.4 has filed the present petition calling in question the correctness of the order passed on I.A.No.36 whereby defendant no.4 has sought for re-opening of

¶38

evidence of plaintiff and I.A.No.37 for permitting him to cross-examine PW.1 both of which came to be rejected by the trial court.

¶39

¶40

WP No. 18113 of 2019

¶41

The reasons assigned while seeking for re-opening of evidence and permitting cross-examination of PW.1 are that one Smt.Aparna Mani had filed an application for being impleaded in the suit alleging that she has purchased the site bearing No.78/4 and she has interest and her application came to be allowed.

¶42

It is submitted that additional issues came to be filed thereafter and plaintiff no.4 as PW.3 has led evidence through GPA holder and in light of impleadment of additional plaintiff no.4 it is necessary to cross-examine PW.1. Similar are the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed with respect to other application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC.

¶43

At the time of arguments, learned counsel Sri.C.M.Nagabushan appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the plaintiff no.4 who was examined as PW.3 had got marked additional documents at Ex.P.76 to P.93 and had led in evidence while adopting the evidence of PW.1 and also adopting evidence of plaintiffs no.1 to 3 and accordingly in light of evidence led in by PW.3 and marking of documents, there was necessity to cross-examine PW.1.

¶44

¶45

WP No. 18113 of 2019

¶46

Learned counsel for respondents would further submit that impleadment of 4^th plaintiff was followed by filing of additional written statement and thereafter, after the evidence of PW.3 and marking of documents, PW.3 was fully crossexamined on 16.05.2016. It is submitted that if PW.3 had led in evidence, got marked the documents and PW.3 had been cross-examined, that by itself would offer no reason for seeking to recall PW.1 when previous application to recall PW.1 had been rejected as per the order passed on I.A.No.34 and 35.

¶47

Perused the impugned order.

¶48

Heard both sides.

¶49

It is noticed that the trial court while dismissing the

¶50

application has primarily relied on the dismissal of the earlier applications filed by the same defendants on I.A.No.34 and 35 has held that it would amount to resjudicata. The learned Single Judge has also noticed the advanced stage of the suit.

¶51

At the outset it must be noted that I.A.No.34 and 35 have been admittedly filed subsequent to the framing of additional issue insofar as case made out that I.A.No.36 and 37 are required to be considered and PW.1 is permitted to

¶52

¶53

WP No. 18113 of 2019

¶54

cross-examine afresh. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that PW.3 was impleaded subsequently after which additional written statement was filed and PW.3 was cross-examined in entirety on 27.02.2016. The fact that certain documents as per Ex.P76 and 93 are marked through PW.3 by itself would offer no reason for re-opening of evidence of PW.1 if documents have been marked through PW.3. The weight of evidence to be placed by marking such of the documents through PW.3 would be limited to the documents vis-à-vis statement through PW.3. The defendant would be at liberty to take benefit of the fact that such of the documents if were required to be marked by PW.1 in fact got marked by PW.3 as Ex.P76.

¶55

Taking note that the case is of the year 2004 and previous applications have been filed after framing of additional issues, no fresh reasons can be found in the applications I.A.No.36 and 37 claiming the same relief sought for in application Nos.34 and 35 which cannot be permitted.

¶56

Accordingly, I find no reason for interference in the impugned order in light of limited jurisdiction available for

¶57

¶58

WP No. 18113 of 2019

¶59

interference in the matter. In exercising such discretional jurisdiction, it must be noted that the same relief as sought for in application No.34 and 35 has been sought in application No.36 and 37 and that the suit is of the year 2004 and I.A.No.37 which by itself would speak regarding the prolonging of the litigation.

¶60

Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the trial court. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

Shri. G. R. Srinivas Reddy @ Babu v. Smt. Rekha Rai Hamilton

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. G. R. Srinivas Reddy @ Babu v. Smt. Rekha Rai Hamilton

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

Mohammed Sajjad a Bijapur Vs N Akber

Narasimhamurthy Vs Smt.Venkatamma

Sri R Shivashankar Vs Smt. R Bhagyalakshmi

Sri. D Anand Naidu Vs Smt. Mamatha R

Shri G R Srinivas Reddy @ Babu Vs Smt Rekha Rai Hamilton

Smt D R Poornima Vs Sri Sadiq Pasha