Dismissed

K N Anand Kumar v. P Chandra Mohan

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2023WP/25690/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a writ petition challenging a civil court order allowing an additional respondent-plaintiff to reopen the record, recall a witness, and produce additional documents relating to apartment sale agreements and deeds in a specific performance suit, holding that no jurisdiction under Article 227 arose as no prejudice was shown.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands rejected.

K N Anand Kumar Vs P Chandra Mohan — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:30110 WP No. 25690 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 25690 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

K N ANAND KUMAR S/O LATE K M NAGAIAH, R/AT NO.16-5-4-A, M.M.ROAD CROSS, HINDUPUR-515 201 (AP).

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. GURU PRASAD C REDDY.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

P CHANDRA MOHAN

¶12

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O LATE VENKATARAMANA SETTY, R/AT NO.567,3RD CROSS, 17TH MAIN ROAD, BEHIND POST OFFICE, SBM COLONY,SRINIVASA NAGAR II STAGE,BANGALORE-560 050.

¶15

M/S R.R.BUILDERS REP.BY ITS PARTNER B.POORNA SHEKARA REDDY, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.255-D,2ND CROSS, ANKAPPA LAYOUT, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 061.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:30110 WP No. 25690 of 2018

¶18

Y A CHENNA RAJU AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS S/O LATE ANKAPPA,

¶19

SMT SHIVARUDRAMMA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS W/O Y A CHENNA RAJU

¶20

THRIBHUVANA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O Y A CHENNA RAJU

¶21

DINESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O Y A CHENNA RAJU

¶22

MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O Y A CHENNA RAJU

¶23

R3 TO R7 ARE

¶24

R/AT NO.15/1,KH.NO.255, SRI KRISHNA RESIDENCY, GARDEN SCHOOL ROAD, ANKAPPA LAYOUT, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 061.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. B S ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶27

VIDE ORDER DATED 25.06.2018 NOTICE TO R2 TO R7 ARE DISPENSED WITH)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.05.2018 IN O.S.5576/09

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:30110 WP No. 25690 of 2018

¶31

BEFORE PRL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE ON I.A.XIII TO XV UNDER ANNEXURE-J ALLOWING THREE APPLICATIONS.

¶32

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

¶33

ORDER

¶34

This petition is by the second defendant in O.S. No.5576/2009 on the file of the V Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru [for short, 'the civil Court' ]. The petitioner has impugned the civil Court's order dated 29.05.2018, and the civil Court by this impugned order has allowed the first respondentplaintiff's applications [I.A. Nos.13-15] for reopening, for leave to recall the first respondent's witness [PW.1] and for leave to produce additional documents on cost of Rs.1,000/- for each of the applications.

¶35

The first respondent's suit in O.S.

¶36

No.5576/2009 is for specific performance of the registered sale agreement dated 24.04.2006 and to declare that the sale deed dated 28.01.2009 executed

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:30110 WP No. 25690 of 2018

¶39

by the second respondent in favour of the petitioner as null and void. The first respondent, when the suit is listed for final arguments, has filed the subject applications to produce the certified copies of the sale agreement dated 12.02.2009, the sale deed dated 18.12.2011 and the certified copy of the Judgment dated 22.10.2013 in O.S. No.5192/2009. The civil Court has allowed these applications observing that if the documents are permitted to be produced, multiplicity of proceedings would be avoided, and that the petitioner cannot be prejudiced because he will have the right to question not just the relevance but also the probative value of these documents.

¶40

The first respondent has filed the suit contending essentially that after the execution of the agreement dated 24.04.2006 for a residential flat described as bearing No.209, new No.109, Block 'B', first floor of 'Sai Krishna Residency' , an apartment complex in Sy. No.15 of Uttarahalli Village,

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:30110 WP No. 25690 of 2018

¶43

Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, the first and second respondents acting in collusion have brought about registered sale agreement and the subsequent sale deed for the very same residential apartment but describing the apartment as bearing ' No.101' . The petitioner is contesting the suit asserting that he is a bonafide purchaser for value denying the first respondent's case that the number of the subject apartment has been switched as asserted by the first respondent.

¶44

Insofar as the documents now sought to be produced, the first respondent has stated that these documents would demonstrate the numbering of the different apartments in the complex and corroborate his case of change in the apartment numbers. Insofar as the delay, the first respondent has submitted that for bonafide reasons, he could not produce these documents. One of the documents now sought to be produced is a copy of the

¶45

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC:30110 WP No. 25690 of 2018

¶47

Judgment and decree in O.S. No.5192/2009 which is dated 22.10.2013, which is obviously during the pendency of the suit.

¶48

This Court, given the nature of the

¶49

dispute, the reasons offered and the civil Court's observation that the petitioner can always contest the relevance and the probative value of these documents, this Court is not inclined to opine that there is reason for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the civil Court's order.

¶50

Hence, the petition stands rejected.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

AN/-

K N Anand Kumar v. P Chandra Mohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K N Anand Kumar v. P Chandra Mohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Gic Pet and Ct Scan Bapunagar LLP Vs Wipro Ge Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

Smt. Venkubai Vs Sri.P.Subramanyam

Smt. Mallamma Vs Sri. H. v. Siddappa

Mr G Anantha Shenoy Vs Mrs Leelamma

Mrs Euna Rodrigues Vs Mrs Philomena Rodrigues

Mr. S Nagaraj Vs M/S Margadarshi Chits (K) Private Limited