Disposed

Sri. Mohammed Samiulla v. Sri. Syed Imran

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2023WP/28224/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a civil court order rejecting applications for additional evidence and recalling witnesses. The court declined to interfere with the rejection of electronic evidence regarding alleged threats but granted liberty to file a recall application if supported by an affidavit demonstrating witness constraint.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to file an application for recall of witnesses subject to the condition of supporting the same by an affidavit alleging witness constraint.

Sri. Mohammed Samiulla Vs Sri. Syed Imran — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:42988 WP No. 28224 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 28224 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SRI. MOHAMMED SAMIULLA S/O MOHAMMED MUSTAFFA SAHIB, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, NO.472/510/6/2, 2^ND STAGE, WARD NO.22, KOTHIPURA, RAMANAGARA TOWN-562159.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SMT. NAZIMA TASNEEM, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.N. MANJUNATH.,ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI. SYED IMRAN S/O LATE SYED MASTAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT HONGANURU ESHWARA TEMPLE, HONGANURU KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK-562160 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. RAJU S.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:42988 WP No. 28224 of 2019

¶16

QUASH THE ORDERS ON I.A.'s DATED 11.06.2019 IN O.S.NO.434/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, AT RAMANAGARA FILED UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 11(A) 3 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC, UNDER ORDER XVIII RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC AND UNDER SECTIN 151 CPC AS PER ANNX-A.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is by the defendant in O.S.

¶20

No.434/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagaram [for short, the ‘ civil Court ’], and the petitioner has impugned the civil Court’s order dated 11.06.2019. The civil Court by this order has rejected the petitioner’s applications under Order VIII Rule 1(A)(3) and Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [ CPC ] read with Section 151 of the CPC.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC:42988 WP No. 28224 of 2019

¶23

The petitioner has filed the first

¶24

application for leave to introduce certain audio recordings and photographs as additional evidence, and he has filed the second application for recalling of the respondent’s witness [PW.1] and his own witness [DW.2]. These applications are filed after the petitioner’s witness is cross-examined in the month of March 2018. The civil Court has rejected these applications recording that the petitioner’s earlier request to introduce such evidence is considered and rejected, and notwithstanding the same, the present set of applications is filed. The civil Court has also opined that the alleged conversation, which is proposed as electronic evidence, would not be relevant in a suit for specific performance.

¶25

3. The respondent’s suit is for specific

¶26

performance of the agreement dated 17.03.2011. The petitioner has filed the written statement denying the agreement dated 17.03.2011 contending that certain

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:42988 WP No. 28224 of 2019

¶29

signatures were obtained when he had obtained financial assistance from a certain Lokesh and these documents are presented as an agreement for sale of the subject property. The respondent and the petitioner have examined their respective witnesses.

¶30

The petitioner has filed the present applications contending that the respondent has threatened him and threatened his witness DW.2 [a deed writer] for having given evidence in the proceedings and this conversation is recorded. This Court, on perusal of the records, is not persuaded to opine that the civil Court has erred in concluding that the alleged threat for tendering evidence would not be relevant. However, if the petitioner can demonstrate that the witness [DW.2] has tendered any evidence under constraint alluding to necessary circumstances in an affidavit, the petitioner could file a separate application supported by such affidavit, but the same cannot be a reason for interfering with

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:42988 WP No. 28224 of 2019

¶33

the impugned order rejecting the application for recalling the witnesses or permitting electronic evidence. In the light of the afore, the following

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an application for recall of the witnesses as aforesaid subject to the condition as mentioned above and with due opportunity to the petitioner to contest the same.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Sri. Mohammed Samiulla v. Sri. Syed Imran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Mohammed Samiulla v. Sri. Syed Imran

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

Mr Sharanesh K S N Vs M/S Ryan Foods LLP

Madhu Bagroy Vs Adarsh Palm Retreat Gulmohar Residents Apartments Welfare Association

R.S. Rock Sand Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Smt Malathi a S Vs Mr H K Nagaraju

Sri. S.V. Somashekar Vs Sri. S. Ramachandran

Sri Mohammed Kaleem Vs M/S Maxworth Realty India Limited