Plaintiff in a specific performance suit challenged rejection of applications to reopen the case and produce belatedly sought documents. The High Court held the documents were irrelevant or produced without explanation for delay and dismissed the writ petition.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 2520 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MUKTHAR AHMED S/O LATE K MOHD. PEER SAAB, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, C/O K M PEER BEEDI WORKS, NEAR MASJID ROAD, KANAKAPURA TOWN AND TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.
(BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN HAS NOT CLAIMED BY THE PETITIONER)
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI LEELADHAR H.P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R1 TO R3 ARE R/AT MUSLIM BLOCK, OPPOSITE SUNSHINE ENGLISH SCHOOL, KANAKAPURA TOWN AND TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562117
NC: 2024:KHC:44255 WP No. 2520 of 2024
W/O M V RAMACHANDRA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT MALAGALA VILLAGE, KANAKAPURA TOWN AND TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. IMRAN PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R3 - SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 16/12/2023 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KANAKAPURA IN OS NO.570/2014 ON IA NO.11 UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR REOPENING THE CASE UNDER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDERS WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The plaintiff in O.S No.570/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kanakapura, Ramanagara District has filed this petition challenging the correctness of the order dated 16.12.2023 by which applications filed by him (I.A Nos.11 to 13) to re-open the case, to recall PW1 and to permit him to produce documents were rejected.
The defendants contested the suit and denied the execution of the agreement of sale. The Trial Court framed issues and set down the case for trial. After the evidence of the parties was concluded and when the case was listed for arguments, the plaintiffs filed I.A No.11 to 13 to recall the stage of the suit, to recall PW1 for further examination and to permit them to produce documents by condoning the delay. These applications were opposed by the defendants contending that the documents sought to be produced were neither relevant nor necessary for disposal of the suit and therefore, recalling the stage of the suit and recalling PW1 for further chief examination does not serve any useful purpose. The Trial Court, after considering the documents that were sought to be produced belatedly held that, the documents were neither relevant nor necessary for the purpose of deciding the suit. Therefore, it rejected all the applications in terms of the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.
of the documents which was sought to be produced was a statement made by the defendant No.1 before the police. He
contends that defendant No.1 had admitted the execution of agreement and therefore, this document was necessary. He also contends that the defendants interse had executed a cancellation agreement dated 16.02.2015, which too was necessary. He contends that the plaintiff intended to produce the revenue records of the properties that belonged to him to establish his readiness and willingness to complete his part of the conduct. He therefore contends that, these documents could not be wished away by the Trial Court on the ground that same were not relevant.
stated for not producing the same at the earliest point of time. He contends that these applications were filed at the fag end of the proceedings and were designed only to protract the proceedings in the suit.
gone for trial and after conclusion of trial, the plaintiff has attempted to produce certain documents. A perusal of the documents sought to be produced indicates that one of them was a non cognizable report issued by the concerned police, a statement allegedly made by defendant No.1 before the police
and a cancellation agreement dated 16.02.2015. The fact of lodging a complaint by the plaintiff against the defendants and the jurisdiction police registering a non cognizable report is of no consequence and does not help the plaintiff in establishing issues framed. Similarly, the statement allegedly made by
defendant No.1 before the concerned police cannot be treated as evidence and therefore, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to mark the documents. The cancellation agreement did not relate
to the agreement dated 06.10.1997 and hence was not relevant and necessary for the purpose of adjudicating the suit. In so far as revenue records are concerned, there is no reason mentioned as to why the plaintiff did not produce the revenue records at the earliest point of time. Therefore, it is evident that the plaintiff has attempted to protract the proceedings by filing these applications. The Trial Court was justified in not allowing the applications.
dismissed .
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's applications to reopen the case, recall PW1 and produce documents belatedly.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI. MUKTHAR AHMED S/O LATE K MOHD. PEER SAAB
SRI. SYED IBRAHIM S/O S A RAZAK
SRI SYED WASIM S/O SYED IBRAHIM
SRI SYED AKRAM S/O SYED IBRAHIM
SMT PUSHPALATHA W/O M V RAMACHANDRA MURTHY
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
