Partly allowed

Sri C Manju v. Smt Jayamma

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2024WP/4454/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner challenged orders rejecting prayer applications to reopen evidence, recall a deponent, and produce documents in a title suit. The High Court allowed withdrawal of applications for retry and evidence but rejected the prayer to re-file already recorded judgments, while setting conditions for the subsequent appearance.

What did the court decide?

I.A. Nos. 25, 26, and 27 allowed; I.A. No. 28 rejected; impugned order set aside in part; Defendant to appear next hearing or face default.

Sri C Manju Vs Smt Jayamma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:41697 WP No. 4454 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 4454 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. C. MANJU S/O GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O NO.373, 16^TH CROSS, ADHIPAMPA ROAD, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU-570002. (BY SRI. CHRISTOPHER NOEL A., ADVOCATE)

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

AND:

¶9

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O THAMMANE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/O KANCHAGARAKOPPAL, KESTHUR POST, K.R. NAGARA TALUK, MYSURU-571602.

¶11

(BY SRI. VIJAY A.M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSORE, DISMISSING THE APPLICATION / IA NOs.25 TO 28 VIDE ORDER DATED 25.01.2024 IN O.S. NO.671/2014 AND OTHER DIRECTIONS. COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IS HEREWITH PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEUXRE-A.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:41697 WP No. 4454 of 2024

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

The defendant in O.S. No.671/2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Mysuru, (henceforth referred to as 'the Trial Court') has filed this writ petition challenging an order dated 25.01.2024 by which, I.A. No.25 filed by him to reopen his evidence and I.A No.26 to recall DW.1 and I.A. Nos.27 and 28 seeking permission to produce additional documents and to condone the delay in filing documents were rejected.

¶20

The suit in O.S. No.671/2014 was filed for declaration of title by the plaintiff / respondent herein and for consequential injunction in respect of a residential house. The plaintiff claimed that she was the lawful owner of the suit schedule property and that the defendant/petitioner herein was attempting to interfere with her possession.

¶21

The suit was contested by the defendant who set up adverse title in respect of the suit schedule property. After the issues were framed and the evidence was adduced, the

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:41697 WP No. 4454 of 2024

¶23

defendant filed four applications, namely, I.A. No.25 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') to reopen the stage of the suit, I.A. No.26 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC to recall the DW.1 for further examination-in-chief and I.A. Nos.27 and 28 under Order VIII Rule 1A of CPC for condonation of delay in producing the documents and seeking permission to produce certain additional documentary evidence.

¶24

The said applications were opposed by the plaintiff

¶25

on the ground that they were designed to protract the proceedings and also that the documents sought to be produced were available with the defendant when he was examined in the first instance.

¶26

The Trial Court rejected all the applications in terms

¶27

of the impugned order primarily on the ground that the documents sought to be produced by the defendant were unnecessary for adjudication of the lis between the parties. It also held that the documents were sought to be produced after a lapse of nearly 11 years from the date of the defendant obtaining them and no reason whatsoever was assigned for delay in producing the said documents.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:41697 WP No. 4454 of 2024

¶30

Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant

¶31

has filed this writ petition.

¶32

Learned counsel for the defendant / petitioner contended that the documents sought to be produced by the defendant related to proceedings in a Court between the same parties in respect of the suit schedule property and therefore, an opportunity had to be granted to the defendant to place on record additional documents. He contends that production of these documents was necessary to establish the case of the defendant and thus, the Trial Court committed an error in rejecting permission to the defendant to produce the documents and also disallowing further examination-in-chief of DW.1.

¶33

Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff / respondent contends that the documents sought to be produced by the defendant were in his custody even at the time when he was examined before the Trial Court. He submits that no cogent reason is cited by the defendant to justify the delay in producing the additional documents at such a belated stage. Thus, he contends that the applications (I.A. Nos.25 to 28) are designed to protract the proceedings before the Trial Court and

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:41697 WP No. 4454 of 2024

¶35

hence, the impugned order is justified and does not warrant any interference.

¶36

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner and the

¶37

respondent/plaintiff.

¶38

The suit is for declaration of title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and for consequential relief of injunction. The suit property is a valuable house property. The defendant has already set up adverse title to the suit schedule property and therefore, the Trial Court must have granted liberty to the parties to establish their respective case. No doubt, the defendant could have produced these documents at the earliest point in time as observed by the Trial Court. If these documents, namely, the plaint, written statement and deposition in O.S. No.1004/1999 were in respect of the same property and between the same parties, the same had to be looked into for a better appreciation of the case of the defendant. Therefore, I.A. Nos.25, 26 and 27 deserve to be allowed. However, in so far as I.A No.28 is concerned, the defendant proposed to produce certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No.988/2009 passed by the Fast

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:41697 WP No. 4454 of 2024

¶40

Track Court-1, Mysuru, but the Trial Court has noted in the impugned order that the certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No.988/2009 is already marked as Ex.D4. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to again produce the very same document. In that view of the matter, the impugned order warrants interference to a limited extent. However, the same cannot be unconditional in view of the conduct of the defendant in sleeping over the proceedings and attempting to produce the documents at a belated stage. Hence, the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. This writ petition is allowed in part .

¶43

ii. The impugned order dated

¶44

25.01.2024 passed by the Principal Senior Civil

¶45

Judge and CJM., Mysuru on I.A. Nos.25, 26 and

¶46

27 is set aside. The applications filed by the

¶47

defendant, namely, I.A. Nos.25, 26 and 27 are

¶48

allowed. The defendant shall adduce further evidence and produce all the documents as

¶49

sought in I.A. No.27 on the next date of hearing

¶50

before the Trial Court and also subject himself

¶51

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:41697 WP No. 4454 of 2024

¶52

for cross-examination by the plaintiff. If for any reason, the defendant defaults in appearing before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing and fails to adduce evidence and present himself for cross-examination, the Trial

¶53

Court may proceed to pass order based on the available materials and dispose off the suit - O.S

¶54

No.671/2014 in accordance with law.

¶55

iii. I.A. No.28 filed by the defendant

¶56

under Order VIII Rule 1A of CPC., is rejected.

¶57

In view of disposal of this petition, I.A. No.1/2024 for

¶58

vacating interim order does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off.

¶59

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶60

SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Sri C Manju v. Smt Jayamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C Manju v. Smt Jayamma

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

Shankarappa Vs Maheshwarappa

Smt K N Vasantha Vs Smt M G Jamunachandra

M/S Suresh Family Trust Vs Sri G Kannappa

Smt Krishnavathi Vs Mrs. Premavathy

Sri. T. Narayana Reddy Vs Sri. Lakshmaiah Reddy

Smt. Yashodamma Vs Sri. Hanumaiah