Disposed

Sri. N.V. Babu v. Sri. T. Umashankar

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2023WP/21323/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a trial court order that denied the plaintiff liberty to lead rebuttal evidence on Issue No.4. The Court set aside the order, granting liberty to the plaintiff to adduce fresh evidence or rebut defendant's evidence if new facts or documents are produced.

What did the court decide?

The trial court order denying liberty to adduce rebuttal evidence was set aside; the plaintiff is at liberty to adduce fresh evidence or rebut defendant's evidence regarding new facts or documents.

Sri. N.V. Babu Vs Sri. T. Umashankar — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.21323 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI N.V.BABU S/O.LATE B.NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS ANJUMAN COMPLEX, NO.28 MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027 ... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI RAVISHANKAR A., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SRI T.UMASHANKAR S/O.SRI H.THIPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT UMASHANKAR FARM HOUSE KUNDALAHALLI, K.R.PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU – 560 037

¶11

SRI H.J.VENKATASWAMY S/O.JUNJAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT HOODI VILLAGE K.R.PURAM HOBLI MAHADEVAPURA POST BENGALURU – 560 048

¶12

SRI G.JANARDHANA RAO S/O.D.V.KRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.209A, 4^TH CROSS 3^RD PHASE, 5^TH BLOCK

¶13

¶14

BSK 3^RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085

¶15

M/S.CHALUKYA HOLIDAY RESORTS (P) LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED AND REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 NO.44, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MR.C.S.SUNDER RAJU ... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI ISMAIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-4) NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 21.09.2016)

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2016 PASSED ON IA NO.41 IN OS NO.2736/2006 BY XXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This writ petition is preferred by the plaintiff questioning the order dated 03.03.2016 on IA.No.41 in O.S.No.2736/2006. An application came to be filed by

¶22

the plaintiff under Order XVIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking for the following reliefs:

¶23

“To pass an appropriate order granting liberty to the Plaintiff to lead rebuttal

¶24

¶25

evidence by way of answer to the evidence produced by the defendants in respect of Issue No.4 framed by it the burden of proving of which lies on the Defendant No.1, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶26

On consideration of the application, the trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that the plaintiff had already produced his evidence on all the issues and he has not reserved it by way of answer to the evidence produced by defendant No.1. It is also held by the trial Court that defendant No.1 has not produced all his evidence and that the evidence of DW.1-defendant is complete and the plaintiff is yet to cross-examine DW.1.

¶27

Learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff filed a memo on 11.09.2018, wherein he has stated that the writ petition could be disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application under Order XVIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking liberty to lead rebuttal evidence by way of answer to the evidence produced by respondent No.1 i.e. defendant No.1 in respect of issue No.4.

¶28

¶29

The crux of the matter is that the parties to

¶30

the lis are adducing evidence now on issue No.4 i.e.

¶31

“Whether defendant No.1 proves his title and possession of ‘B’ schedule property?”

¶32

It is submitted across the Bar that presently,

¶33

the case is posted for further evidence of plaintiff and same being recorded, the plaintiff would be at liberty to adduce evidence on issue No.4 framed by the trial Court. Pursuant to which, the law will take its course by defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses and any other witnesses. Subsequent to which, the defendants would be at liberty to examine themselves on issue No.4 and cross-examine PW.1.

¶34

The moot point involved herein for consideration is that if the defendants adduce evidence on issue No.4 bringing any new facts which is not already pleaded or adduced before the Court, whether the plaintiff would be put in difficulty for not answering the same. This would not take much time for this Court to answer for the simple reason that the plaintiff and defendants are at liberty to adduce evidence on the

¶35

¶36

basis of the material pleadings placed before the Court and issues framed by the Court. In case, any new facts in issue or relevant facts are produced by virtue of documents by defendant No.1 with regard to additional issue No.4, the plaintiff would certainly be at liberty to cross-examine or rebut such evidence by way of oral or documentary evidence.

¶37

In view of the above discussions, orders on application-IA.No.41 is set-aside and the plaintiff is at liberty to adduce fresh evidence or rebut evidence of defendant No.1 in case of production of fresh new facts or by way of production of any documents. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of .

¶38

It is made clear that if no new facts either oral or documentary evidence is produced by defendant No.1, the question of rebuttal evidence would not enure to the benefit of the plaintiff.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Sri. N.V. Babu v. Sri. T. Umashankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. N.V. Babu v. Sri. T. Umashankar

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

Padma Bhushan Dr Rajkumar Vidyasamste (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Aboobacker Vs Mohammed Haneef

Smt. Manjula v Vs T Manjunatha

Smt. Asha M S Vs Sri Vishwanatha H R

Sri Shaik Aslam Pasha @ Babu Vs the Jaraganahally House Bldg.

Sri. Chaitanya Techno School Vs the State of Karnataka