Allowed¶42

Sri Marlingegowda v. Smt Lakshmi

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2025WP/12095/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Specific performance; agreement of sale dated 08.04.2009; O.S.No.24/2011; recall of P.W.1; re-opening of case; production of RTC; Section 151 CPC; Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC; Order VII Rule 14(a) CPC; rejection on ground of delay; application filed at argument stage; certiorari under Articles 226 & 227; Civil Judge & JMFC Holenarasipura; cost of Rs.3,000/-; writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 11.02.2019 set aside.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 11.02.2019 in O.S.No.24/2011 set aside; I.A.Nos. V to VII allowed subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- cost to the respondent/defendant; petitioner directed to examine P.W.1 on 04.08.2025 without seeking any adjournment. ¶42

Sri Marlingegowda Vs Smt Lakshmi — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of certiorari should issue quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 11.02.2019 in O.S.No.24/2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. at Holenarasipura rejecting I.A.Nos. V to VII. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.02.2019 passed by the Civil Judge & JMFC, Holenarasipura, on I.A.Nos. V to VII in O.S.No.24/2011, is set aside.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The RTC of the suit schedule property is necessary to decide the controversy between the parties; although the applications were filed during the course of arguments and there was delay, the delay should not be a ground to reject them, and the applications deserve to be allowed on terms.

¶38

Key takeaways

I.A.Nos. V to VII are allowed subject to the petitioner paying cost of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent/defendant.ratio¶45
The petitioner shall examine P.W.1 on 04.08.2025 without seeking any adjournment.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.), 14.07.2025 — Writ Petition (GM-CPC) No. 12095 of 2019 under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution allowed. The petitioner, plaintiff in O.S.No.24/2011 (suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 08.04.2009), had filed I.A.Nos. V to VII under Section 151, Order XVIII Rule 17 and Order VII Rule 14(a) CPC to re-open the case, recall P.W.1 for further examination-in-chief and produce the RTC of the suit schedule property; the Civil Judge & JMFC, Holenarasipura rejected them on 11.02.2019 on the ground of delay, the applications having been filed when the matter was already posted for arguments. Held: the RTC was necessary to decide the controversy, since the defendant had denied execution of the agreement and his ownership/right to alienate; delay in filing, and the timing at the argument stage, were not grounds for rejection. The impugned order was set aside, I.A.Nos. V to VII were allowed subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- cost to the respondent/defendant, and the petitioner was directed to examine P.W.1 on 04.08.2025 without seeking adjournment.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:25728 WP No. 12095 of 2019

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.12095 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MARLINGEGOWDA S/O BAIRAPPA @ KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NAGARTHI VILLAGE, HOLENARSIPURA HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka

¶11

SMT. LAKSHMI D/O SWAMYSHETTI, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/AT C/O NO.3043, 8TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, T K LAYOUT, TONNACHIKOPPALU MYSURU - 570 001.

¶12

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.M.SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 11.02.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JDUGE AND J.M.F.C. AT HOLENARASIPURA PASSED ON APPLICATION U/S 151 OF C.P.C. IN O.S.NO.24/11. THE SAID I.A. IS NO. AS I.A.NO.V. THE PLANITIFF/PETITIONER HEREIN HAS FILED APPLICATION U/O 18 R-17 OF C.P.C. PRAYING TO

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25728 WP No. 12095 of 2019

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

RE-CALL THE CHIEF OF THE PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE THE SAID I.A. IS NO. AS I.A.NO.VI. THE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER HEREIN HAS FILED APPLICATION U/O 7 R-14(a) OF C.P.C. SEEKING PERMISSION TO PRODUCE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT THE SAID I.A. IS NO. AS I.A.NO.VII VIDE ANNX-A.

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

This Writ petition is filed seeking for the following relief:

¶21

" a) Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari by setting aside/quash the impugned order dated 11.02.2019 in O.S.no.24/2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. at Holenarasipura passed on application u/s 151 of C.P.C. the said I.A. is No. as I.A.No.V. The plaintiff/petitioner herein has filed application u/o 18 r-17 of C.P.C. praying to re-call the chief of the plaintiff evidence the said I.A. is No. as I.A.No.VI. The plaintiff/petitioner herein has filed application u/o 7 r-14 (a) of C.P.C. seeking permission to produce additional document the said I.A. is No. as I.A.No.VII. Which is marked as Annexure-A etc."

¶22

Sri Syed Akbar Pasha, learned counsel for the

¶23

petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed suit for specific performance against the respondent and after completion of recording of the evidence, an application was filed to recall P.W.1 and sought for permission to produce RTC, which came to be rejected by the trial Court. It is

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25728 WP No. 12095 of 2019

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

submitted that the said RTC is necessary to decide the controversy between the parties, as the respondent/ plaintiff has denied that he is not the owner of the property and this RTC would clinch the issue. Hence, for complete adjudication, an opportunity may be provided for production of the RTC and seeks for allowing the writ petition.

¶27

Per contra , Sri Chandrashekar N., learned counsel for Sri K.M. Somashekara, learned counsel for respondent/defendant supports the impugned order passed by the trial Court and submits that the trial Court has rightly recorded the reasons that three years has been granted to the petitioner/plaintiff to adduce evidence and he has failed to produce the same and filing of the above application is nothing but protracting the proceedings. Hence sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶28

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:25728 WP No. 12095 of 2019

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

The petitioner filed O.S.No.24/2011 against the respondent herein seeking for judgment and decree of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 08.04.2009. The records indicate that the parties have adduced evidence and matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, the petitioner filed application under Section 151 of CPC and under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC praying to re-open the case, recall P.W.1 for further examinationin-chief and application filed under Order VII rule 14 (a) of CPC for condonation of delay in filing the application for production of evidence. Said application came to be rejected by the trial Court on the ground of delay. The petitioner has made specific assertion in the plaint that the respondent has executed agreement of sale on 08.04.2009 which has been denied by the respondent in the written statement contending that he has not executed the aforesaid agreement and also that he was not having right to alienate the said property. Said assertion is denied by the petitioner in his evidence. However, he intends to produce the RTC of the said suit schedule property which is prior to the execution of the agreement of sale to indicate

¶33

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25728 WP No. 12095 of 2019

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

that the respondent/defendant is the lawful owner and eligible to execute the sale deed.

¶36

In my considered view, the aforesaid document

¶37

would be necessary to decide the controversy between the

¶38

parties, though there is delay in filing the application, should not be a ground to reject the same. However, this Court also cannot ignore the fact that application is filed during the course of the arguments. Hence, application is deserves to be allowed on terms.

¶39