High Court under Article 226 quashed the trial court order rejecting applications to reopen case and lead evidence. Allowed petitioner opportunity to lead evidence on next hearing date, imposing costs.
Impugned order dated 19.03.2021 set aside; petitioner permitted to lead evidence on 08.09.2023 or next date; cost of Rs.25,000 imposed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:32048 WP No. 7463 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7463 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
THE PROJECT MANAGER M/S. E-SPRING BUILDING SYSTEM (I) PVT. LTD., WORKING SPOT AT SY.NO.31/7 HENNURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT-560043 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER ASHOKGOWDA J.
…PETITIONER
(BY MS. K.M.ARCHANA, ADV. FOR SRI. VIKRAM G., ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed by A K CHANDRIKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HESARAGATTA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT-560088.
NC: 2023:KHC:32048 WP No. 7463 of 2021
S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O HENNURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT-560043.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.RAJANNA, ADV. FOR R1 –ABSENT R5 IS SERVED, R2 TO R4 – SERVICE AWAITED)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.3944/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-15) AT BENGALURU, PERUSE THE SAME AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 PASSED ON IA NO.28 AND IA NO.29, FILED UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 R/W 151 OF CPC AND UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC RESPECTIVELY IN O.S.NO.3944/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE CIT CIVIL COURT (CCH-15) AT BANGALORE AT ANNEX-E.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner/defendant No.6 in O.S.No.3944/2011
on the file of the City Civil Court at Bangalore is before this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 19.03.2021 rejecting I.A.No.28 filed under Section 151 of CPC to re-open the case and I.A.No.29 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC seeking permission to lead evidence of defendant No.6.
learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 was present in the morning when the matter was passed over to the afternoon session to produce entire order sheet and there is no representation for respondent No.1 in the afternoon.
the suit is one for partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties and also to declare that the alleged decree of compromise in O.S.No.4212/1990 dated 28.8.1995 is not binding on the plaintiff’s share and also for permanent injunction.
date, the petitioner/defendant No.6 filed above two applications. Learned counsel would submit that the trial Court committed an error in rejecting both the applications, without noticing that defendant No.6 is not provided opportunity to lead evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner would pray for an opportunity to lead evidence.
that he has not been provided an opportunity to defend himself. Hence, the following order:
The order dated 19.03.2021 passed on I.As.No.28 and 29 is set aside. The petitioner/defendant No.6 is permitted to lead evidence on the next date of hearing i.e., on 08.09.2023 or immediately on the next date of hearing.
The petitioner shall pay cost of Rs.25,000/- to the State Legal Services Authority and produce the receipt for having paid cost before the trial Court. If the petitioner/ defendant No.6 fails to lead evidence on 08.09.2023 or immediately on the next date, the petitioner would forfeit his right to lead evidence.
With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order of the trial court rejecting the applications to re-open the case and lead evidence requires to be set aside.
Whether the petitioner was denied an opportunity to lead evidence in the trial court and if an opportunity should be granted.
Whether the petitioner should be permitted to lead evidence on the next date of hearing after setting apart the impugned order.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
M/S. E-SPRING BUILDING SYSTEM (I) PVT. LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER ASHOKGOWDA J.
SMT. SHYAMALA W/O M LOKESH
SMT. MANJULA W/O LATE SUBRAMANI
SMT. PARVATHAMMA D/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA
SRI THYAGARAJU S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA
SRI HARISH S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA
S.G.PANDIT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
