Dismissed

Sayyad Ahmed Shaha Khatib Since Deceased by Lrs., Noorpasha Begum Sayyad Ahmed Shaha Khatib v. Veerayya S/O Veerabasayya Kochalapurmath Since Deceased by Lrs. Pushpa W/O Veerayya Kochalapurmath .

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2024WP/101960/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition for certiorari against an order rejecting a discovery application. The bench held the impugned order was just and proper, noting petitioners were aware of the alleged complaint and could have produced it.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking to quash the impugned order was dismissed. The trial court was directed to continue the hearing and pass judgment within two months.

Sayyad Ahmed Shaha Khatib Since Deceased by Lrs… — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:5942 WP No. 101960 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO.101960 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SAYYAD AHMED SHAHA KHATIB

¶6

SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.,

¶7

NOORPASHA BEGUM SAYYAD AHMED SHAHA KHATIB,

¶8

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE MAKER,

¶9

SAYYED GOUSEPASHA S/O. SAYYAD AHMED SHAHA KHATIB,

¶10

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER, BOTH ARE R/O. #506, 5^TH FLOOR, A WING, MAHIMA EMERALD APARTMENTS, NEAR KESHAVAPUR POLICE STATION, NAVEEN PARK, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580023.

¶11

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2024.04.04 11:43:23 +0530

¶12

SAYYAD KHADARPASHA S/O. SAYYAD AHMED SHAHA KHATIB, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O. G-007, AUM SHREE HETITAGE APARTMENTS, ADJACENT TO NEW COURT COMPLEX VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580021.

¶13

SAYYED MEHABOOBPASHA S/O. SAYYAD AHMED SHAHA KHATIB, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER, R/O. #506, 5^TH FLOOR, A WING

¶14

MAHIMA APARTMENTS, NEAR KESHWAPUR POLICE STATION, NAVEEN PARK, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580023.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:5942 WP No. 101960 of 2024

¶18

AND:

¶19

VEERAYYA S/O. VEERABASAYYA KOCHALAPURMATH, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.

¶20

PUSHPA W/O. VEERAYYA KOCHALAPURMATH, AGED BOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O. 104, SWAMI PLAZA, BYAHATTI PLOTS, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580029.

¶21

SUMA R. WARIKALLAMATH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O. #75/76, JANANI CHANDRAGIRI LAYOUT, NEAR PLICE QUARTERS, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580030.

¶22

GURUPRAKASH S/O. VEERAYYA KOCHALAPURMATH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. #104, SWAMI PLAZA BYAHATTI PLOTS, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580029.

¶23

LALITA W/O. VISHWANATH KOCHALAPURMATH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER,

¶24

VAIBHAV S/O. VISHWANATH KOCHALAPURMATH, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

¶25

VIJAYENDRA S/O. VISHWANATH KOCHALAPURMATH, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE RESPONDENTS 5 & 6 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THE NATURAL MOTHER R4 ALL ARE R/O. #204, SWAMI PLAZA BYAHATTI PLOTS, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580029.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC-D:5942 WP No. 101960 of 2024

¶28

BASANAGOUDA

¶29

S/O. HUNAMANTHGOUDA RAYANAGOUDAR, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS

¶30

YALLAPPA S/O. BASANAGOUDA RAYANAGOUDAR, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶31

SMT. GEETA W/O. BASAVARAJ BIRADAR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, BOTH RESPONDENT 7 & 8 ARE R/O. HALIYAL VILLAGE, TALUK: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580023.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI VISHWANATH S. BICHAGATTI & SRI PARASHURAM C. SAJJANAR, ADV. FOR R1 TO R6; R7 AND R8 ARE DISPENSED WITH)

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07-02-2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AT HUBBALLI IN OS NO.1376/1989 ON IA NO. 38 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶35

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:5942 WP No. 101960 of 2024

¶37

ORDER

¶38

This writ petition is filed seeking for following

¶39

relief.

¶40

A writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the impugned order dated 07-02-2024 passed by the learned III Addl. Civil Judge at Hubballi in O.S.no.1376/1989 on I.A.no.38 vide AnnexureF.

¶41

Sri Santosh B.Mane, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners were defendants no.2A to 2D respectively in O.S.no.1376/1989 pending before III Additional Civil Court and JMFC, Hubballi filed application under Order XVI Rule 6 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for directing plaintiff no.1C to produce details of complaint or criminal case filed by defendant no.1 against original plaintiff and his friend, who is a government servant. It was submitted, before trial Court defendants have taken a stand that suit itself is based on fabricated agreement of sale. Since defendants have taken a stand that entire suit is based on fabricated agreement of sale and owner of land had stated that a complaint was filed against fabricated document, issuance

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:5942 WP No. 101960 of 2024

¶43

of direction for production of said complaint or furnishing of information or particulars about such complaint, would be necessary. It was submitted, since said information would have material bearing on result of suit, application was filed. It was submitted, under impugned order, trial Court has rejected application on untenable reasons. It was submitted, reason assigned that mere filing of a complaint would not have any effect on registered sale agreement and records or information sought for even if brought on record, would not be necessary for appreciation of documents and evidence on record would

¶44

not be tenable and therefore, sought for allowing applications.

¶45

On other hand Sri Vishwanath Bichagatti, learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff submitted that, suit was of year 1987 and was among oldest suits. It was submitted, trial had concluded and matter was at stage of arguments. Under such circumstances, applications are filed one after another to dilate suit proceedings. It was

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:5942 WP No. 101960 of 2024

¶47

submitted, since it was a suit for specific performance, entire burden of establishing agreement, would be on plaintiffs and that stray admission about filing of a complaint by some other person than original owner or complainant would not be a sufficient cause for filing of application and therefore, sought for dismissal of writ petition.

¶48

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶49

papers.

¶50

From above, it is seen that application is filed by defendants for direction to plaintiffs to produce document or details of complaint. It is not in dispute that admission about said such complaint etc, is on a suggestion by petitioners. If it is so, petitioners are aware of complaint and ought to have produced same before Court and cannot call upon other side to produce document to substantiate their contentions. Reasons assigned by trial Court appear to be just and proper. No interference is warranted.

¶51

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:5942 WP No. 101960 of 2024

¶52

Writ petition is dismissed.

¶53

It is seen that since suit is decades old, trial Court is

¶54

directed to proceed with arguments and thereafter pass appropriate judgment and decree in accordance with law within a period of two months from date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Sayyad Ahmed Shaha Khatib Since Deceased by Lrs., Noorpasha Begum Sayyad Ahmed Shaha Khatib v. Veerayya S/O Veerabasayya Kochalapurmath Since Deceased by Lrs. Pushpa W/O Veerayya Kochalapurmath .

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayyad Ahmed Shaha Khatib Since Deceased by Lrs., Noorpasha Begum Sayyad Ahmed Shaha Khatib v. Veerayya S/O Veerabasayya Kochalapurmath Since Deceased by Lrs. Pushpa W/O Veerayya Kochalapurmath .

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

Santosh S/O Veeranna Sonnad Vs Nil

National Organisation of Insurance Development Officers Vs the Chairperson

Sri. Chandrashekhar S/O Mohan Upase Vs Sri. Hemachandra S/O Mohan Upase

Smt Shobha W/O Shivanagouda Biradar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivappa Basappa Kallur Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Shivanandmungarwadi S/O Shankarappa Mungarwadi Vs M/S R.N Hattaraki