Allowed

Sri. H. S. Ramesh v. Sri. Tanvir Jaleel

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2023WP/49436/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka granted liberty to Civil Court to reconsider and permit petitioner to produce documents showing fund sources. Court directed Civil Court to dispose of pending suit within six months as a long-pending matter.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to Civil Court to permit petitioner to file application for production of additional documents and direct suit disposal within six months.

Sri. H. S. Ramesh Vs Sri. Tanvir Jaleel — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:43396 WP No. 49436 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 49436 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SRI. H. S. RAMESH S/O LATE SRI. SRINIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT 1701/1701-1, BN STREET MANDI MOHALLA MYSORE - 570 021.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SMT.RAJESHWARI M., ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

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

¶10

SRI. TANVIR JALEEL S/O SRI ABDUL JALEEL REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY SRI KASHIM BAIG S/O SRI AZEEZ BAIG AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.595, NE OF N.R.MOHALLA MYSORE - 570 021.

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. PRAKASH M H.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.09.2019 PASSED BY THE 4^TH ADDL. FIRST CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MYSORE ON IA NO.19 IN O.S.NO.964/2013 VIDE ANNX-A.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:43396 WP No. 49436 of 2019

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition is by defendant in

¶19

O.S.No.964/2013 on the file of the IV Additional I Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru [for short, ‘the civil Court’ ]. The petitioner has impugned the civil Court’s order dated 25.09.2019, and the civil Court by this order has rejected the petitioner’s application [IA.19] under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure [ CPC ]. The civil Court, recoding that the petitioner has filed the present application at the fag end of the proceedings, has opined that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate bona fides in filing the belated application and the proposed amendment would not be necessary in the light of the petitioner’s contention in the written statement.

¶20

The respondent has commenced the suit in O.S.No.964/2013 for the petitioner’s ejectment asserting landlord and tenant relationship, and the petitioner has denied such relationship asserting that

¶21

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC:43396 WP No. 49436 of 2019

¶23

during the year 2011 he has deposited a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- under a mortgage transaction. The parties have led their evidence and in fact, a copy of the deposition of the parties before the civil Court is placed on record. The petitioner in filing the present application proposes to include the three amendments viz ., to mention the date of the said transaction, the denial of the landlord and tenant relationship and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the civil Court.

¶24

It is seen from the written statement filed that there is elaborate reference to the transaction mentioning the year of transaction and the different sources from which the petitioner has mobilized funds to pay the alleged amount of Rs.50,00,000/- to the respondent. It is also seen from the crossexamination of the respondent that a copy of the purported mortgage agreement is confronted to him. The civil Court, while recording evidence, has

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:43396 WP No. 49436 of 2019

¶27

recorded the date of the document as asserted by the petitioner. The proposed amendment to include the date of the transaction, with all the foundational facts pleaded in the written statement, would not be necessary and the petitioner must be at liberty, notwithstanding the impugned order, to assert the date of the transaction as suggested to the respondent in the cross examination for due consideration.

¶28

Insofar as the other two proposed amendments, these are essential defenses in law that emerge from certain facts which have to be proved and these defenses, notwithstanding some deficiency in the pleadings in this regard, will be available to the petitioner so long as the foundational pleadings are brought out. It must be observed accordingly, and is so observed.

¶29

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has permitted the

¶30

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:43396 WP No. 49436 of 2019

¶31

petitioner to place on record a copy the documents to show how the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- has been mobilized by the petitioner to pay to the respondent but it is yet to be filed, and therefore, liberty may be reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the civil Court to produce such documents.

¶32

This submission is considered, and this Court is of the considered view that it would suffice to observe that no adverse inference shall be drawn against the petitioner for failure to produce the copies of the documents in the present proceedings and that

¶33

the civil Court must consider the question of permitting the petitioner to produce additional documents in the light of all the materials that are already on record. It is needless to observe that the suit is pending for a period of one decade and therefore, the civil Court must consider the suit as a long pending matter and take necessary measures to

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:43396 WP No. 49436 of 2019

¶36

ensure that the suit is adjudicated expeditiously but within an outer limit of six [6] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶37

The petition stands disposed of accordingly, and in view of the disposal of the petition, the pending application does not survive for consideration, and it is disposed of.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

SA ct:sr

Sri. H. S. Ramesh v. Sri. Tanvir Jaleel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. H. S. Ramesh v. Sri. Tanvir Jaleel

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

M/S. Sukavaan and Kunal Vs M/S. Cultfit Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

Sri. Y C Manohara Vs the State of Karnataka

Guardian Healthcare Services Private Limited Vs Counfreedise Retail Services Limited

M/S 7HILLSTS Private Limited Vs Smt Prerana Rajendra Ozarkar

Hector Beverages Private Limited Vs Clarion Beverages

Colliers International (India) Property Services Private Limited Vs Azim Premji University