Partly allowed

Smt Shanthamma v. Smt Gadigamma

Karnataka HC30 Jan 2023WP/22108/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petition filed by petitioners to set aside the order of the Senior Civil Judge dismissing an application for additional evidence. The Court held that such applications must be considered at the final stage of the appeal per Sanjay Kumar Singh guidelines and directed the Appellate Court to reconsider the matter.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 26.10.2021 dismissed at the interlocutory stage was set aside with direction to reconsider the application for additional evidence at the final hearing.

Smt Shanthamma Vs Smt Gadigamma — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 22108 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 22108 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶10

SRI BASAVARAJU S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶11

SMT GEETHA D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶12

SMT RENUKA D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶13

RAGHAVENDRA

¶14

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶16

ALL ARE R/AT HURULIHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK - 577228.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. B N JAYADEVA, ADVOCATE)

¶19

¶20

WP No. 22108 of 2021

¶21

AND:

¶22

SMT GADIGAMMA W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶23

CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶24

SMT MEENAKSHI D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶25

ALL ARE R/AT HURULIHALLI VILAGE KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH N V., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 R3- SERVED)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2021 PASSED ON APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 27 IN R.A.NO.28/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT TARIKERE, ANNEXURE-G. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The present writ petition has been filed by the respondents in R.A.No.28/2018 seeking to set aside the order dated 26.10.2021, whereby an application filed by

¶31

¶32

WP No. 22108 of 2021

¶33

the appellants in R.A.No.28/2018 under Order 41 Rule 27(b) r/w Section 151 of CPC has been allowed.

¶34

It is the primary contention of the learned

¶35

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the application should be considered at the time of disposal of the main matter, in light of the requirement in law that it is for the Court to come to a conclusion that it cannot pass a judgment on the material before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. Accordingly, it is submitted that the appropriate stage of deciding as to whether the application is required to be allowed is at the stage of final hearing of the case.

¶36

Reliance is placed on the order passed in W.P.No.201293/2021 as also the judgment of the Hon'ble

¶37

Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 268 .

¶38

No doubt, the Co-ordinate Bench has held that

¶39

the appropriate stage for considering the application for

¶40

¶41

WP No. 22108 of 2021

¶42

production of additional documents is at the time of disposal of the appeal.

¶43

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand has laid down Guidelines of a manner in which, an application for production of additional documents in the appellate proceedings are required to be considered.

¶44

Clearly, in the present case, the application has been disposed off at the stage prior to disposal of the main appeal. Accordingly, it would be a fit case for setting aside the impugned order and directing the Appellate Court to reconsider the application keeping in mind the settled position of law as comes out from the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh (supra).

¶45

Needless to state that the application is to be considered at the final stage.

¶46

It is also clarified that in light of certain ambiguity in the affidavit and the application, the respondents are at

¶47

¶48

WP No. 22108 of 2021

¶49

liberty to file additional affidavit along with list of the documents to be produced. Same to be considered after hearing both sides at the stage of final hearing of the appeal.

¶50

Accordingly, petition is disposed off with the above observation.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Smt Shanthamma v. Smt Gadigamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shanthamma v. Smt Gadigamma

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

Sri. N. R. Gangadhara Shastry Vs Smt. N. G. Mamatha

Sri Arunachalam S Vs Smt. Chandrakala

Smt v Pushpa Vs Sri K Anand Kumar

Sri L Suresh Vs Sri L Ramesh

Smt. Sharadamma Vs Ramamurthy Since Dead

Sri S Umashankar Vs Sri S Rajanna