Allowed

The Chairman v. Shanmukhappa S/O. Channappa Rudrabai

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2024WP/106503/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the trial court's rejection of an application for leading further evidence, holding that parties in a counter-claim suit are entitled to produce evidence and set aside the impugned order to permit additional evidence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 12.02.2019 setting aside the application for leading further evidence is set aside and recalled, and the petitioner is permitted to lead further evidence.

The Chairman Vs Shanmukhappa S/O. Channappa Rudrabai — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9069 WP No. 106503 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 106503 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

THE CHAIRMAN, VISHWACHETAN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, WARD NO.X, RUDRAKSHI LAYOUT, EXTENSION AREA, BAGALKOTE-587101.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. S.B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SHANMUKHAPPA S/O. CHANNAPPA RUDRABAI SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S. R1 TO R5.

¶11

SMT. SHARADA @ RUDRABAI W/O. SHANMUKHAPPA RUDRAKSHI, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: WARD NO.X, RUDRAKSHI CHAWL, EXTENSION AREA, BAGALKOTE-587101.

¶12

ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶13

SMT. TANUJA @ SHRILAXMI W/O. MAHANTESH BYHATTI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MANJUNATH NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶14

SANTOSH

¶15

S/O. SHANMUKHAPPA RUDRAKSHI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED, R/O: WARD NO.X, RUDRAKSHI CHAWL, EXTENSION AREA, BAGALKOTE-587101.

¶16

MANGALA D/O. SHANMUKHAPPA RUDRAKSHI,

¶17

- 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9069 WP No. 106503 of 2019

¶18

AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: WARD NO.X, RUDRAKSHI CHAWL, EXTENSION AREA, BAGALKOTE-587101.

¶19

SHWETA

¶20

D/O. SHANMUKHAPPA RUDRAKSHI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: WARD NO.X, RUDRAKSHI CHAWL, EXTENSION AREA, BAGALKOTE-587101.

¶21

SMT. SHANTABAI W/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA RUDRAKSHI, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: RUDRAKSHI CHAWL, EXTENSION AREA, BAGALKOTE-587101.

¶22

SHRISHAIL S/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA RUDRAKSHI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: RUDRAKSHI CHAWL, EXTENSION AREA, BAGALKOTE-587101.

¶23

SMT. RATNABAI W/O. SHIDRAMAPPA RUDRAKSHI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: RUDRAKSHI CHAWL, EXTENSION AREA, BAGALKOTE-587101.

¶24

MANJUNATH S/O. SHIDRAMAPPA RUDRAKSHI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: RUDRAKSHI CHAWL, EXTENSION AREA, BAGALKOTE-587101.

¶25

10. SANJAY

¶26

S/O. SHIDRAMAPPA RUDRAKSHI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: RUDRAKSHI CHAWL, EXTENSION AREA, BAGALKOTE-587101.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9069 WP No. 106503 of 2019

¶28

NAGARAJ S/O. SHIDRAMAPPA RUDRAKSHI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: RUDRAKSHI CHAWL, EXTENSION AREA, BAGALKOTE-587101.

¶29

SMT. JAYASHREE

¶30

W/O. RAJESH KARAKANNAVAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: M.M. HUGAR, HOUSE NO.17, NEAR SUB-JAIL, ADHYAPAK NAGAR,

¶31

HUBBALLI-32.

¶32

13. PRABHU

¶33

S/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA RUDRAKSHI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: RUDRAKSHI CHAWL, EXTENSION AREA, BAGALKOTE-587101.

¶34

14. CHANNAPPA

¶35

S/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA RUDRAKSHI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: RUDRAKSHI CHAWL, EXTENSION AREA, BAGALKOTE-587101.

¶36

THE SECRETARY, VISHWACHETAN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, WARD NO.X, RUDRAKSHI LAYOUT, EXTENSION AREA, BAGALKOTE-587101.

¶37

THE HEAD MASTER, VISHWACHETAN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, WARD NO.X, RUDRAKSHI LAYOUT, EXTENSION AREA, BAGALKOTE-587101.

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY S. HALLIKERI, ADV. FOR R1, R2, R3, R8, R9, R10, R11 & R12; R4, R5, R6, R7, R13, R14, R15 & R16 ARE SERVED)

¶40

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9069 WP No. 106503 of 2019

¶41

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, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.02.2019 ON I.A.NO.13, PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC BAGALKOT IN O.S.NO.78/2010, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND ALLOW THE SAID I.A. AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO LEAD FURTHER EVIDENCE AND ETC.

¶42

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

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 assailing the order of the learned Judge passed on I.A.No.13 in O.S.No.78/2010 dated 12.02.2019.

¶45

The petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.13 under Order 18 Rule 2 of The Code of Civil Procedure requesting the Court to recall the order dated 10.01.2019 taking evidence of defendants as closed and permit the petitioner to lead further evidence. Learned Judge rejected the said application. While rejecting the application, learned Judge held that defendants citing pendency of W.P.No.107151/2018 are unnecessarily seeking adjournments. Learned Judge was of the view that defendant Nos.1 to 3 have taken sufficient time

¶46

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9069 WP No. 106503 of 2019

¶47

to lead further evidence. On these set of grounds, application is rejected.

¶48

Though learned counsel appearing for

¶49

respondents/plaintiffs has contested this petition, this Court is of the view that having regard to the fact that in a suit, where there is a counter claim, the parties are entitled to substantiate their claim by producing cogent and clinching evidence. This Court has also taken cognizance of the fact that writ petition filed in W.P.No.107151/2018 is disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21.06.2024. In the interest of justice, this Court is of the view that petitioner is entitled to lead further evidence. If petitioner is permitted to lead further evidence, no serious prejudice will be caused to respondents/plaintiffs. Merely because it may cause some inconvenience to plaintiff, that in itself cannot constitute a ground to deny defendant No.1 an opportunity to lead further evidence. The prayer sought in I.A.No.13 gains substantial significance as this Court has already allowed the writ petition and trial Court is directed to examine as to whether a Xerox copy of an agreement to sale can be taken on record to enable the petitioner to seek relief of

¶50

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9069 WP No. 106503 of 2019

¶51

specific performance of contract. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶54

ii) Impugned order dated 12.02.2019 passed by I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot on I.A.No.13 in O.S.No.78/2010 is hereby set-aside. The order dated 12.02.2019 is recalled.

¶55

iii) Petitioner is permitted to lead further

evidence.

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58

The Chairman v. Shanmukhappa S/O. Channappa Rudrabai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chairman v. Shanmukhappa S/O. Channappa Rudrabai

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

S.M. Basava S/O Revansidda Sharma Vs State of Karnataka

Abubakkar.M.Beside Nice Bakery Vs the Human Resource Management

Dr. Chidanand Vs Honble Secretary Vivek Bhasme

Shri.Ravindra S/O Sadanand Revanakar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shri. Jagadish Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Sadananad S/O Bhaskar Revanakar Vs the State of Karnataka