Govindappa Vs Sri Rangappa

S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS PETITIONERS 1(A TO C) ARE R/AT T. AGRAHARA VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶15

1(D). SMT. GAYATHRAMMA W/O B.R. NATESH D/O LATE GOVIDAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS NAYANAHALLI VILLAGE

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:52692 WP No. 3152 of 2020

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

NANDI HOBLI

¶19

CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK - 562 101 CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.

¶20

1(E). SMT. SHOBHA G W/O B.V. VENKATESH D/O LATE GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS THAMMANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE JATHAVARA POST, NADI HOBLI CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK - 562 101 CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.

¶21

…PETITIONER

¶22

(BY SRI. S.A. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

SRI. RANGAPPA S/O LATE RAMAIAH @ KUNTI RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶25

SRI. THAIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS (DEAD BY LRS)

¶26

2(A). SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶27

2(B). SRI. SRINIVASA T S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶28

2(C). SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA D/O LATE THIMMAIAH

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52692 WP No. 3152 of 2020

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

W/O VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶32

2(D). SMT. JAYALAKSHMI D/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶33

2(E). SRI. T VENKATESH D/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶34

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NAYANAHALLI BILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 101.

¶35

SMT. T NAGARAHTNAMMA W/O VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NAYANAHALLI BILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 101.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI. KARTHIK B.Y, ADVOCATE FOR R2(C); R1, R2(A), R2(B), R2(D), R2(E), R3 - SERVED)

¶38

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTCLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-K DATED 21.1.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.639/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHICKMAGALURU ON IA U/S 151 OF CPC TO RE-OPEN THE CASE AND IA U/O 18 RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC TO RECALL THE ORDER AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER PLAINTIFF ADDUCE EVIDENCE AND ETC.,

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:52692 WP No. 3152 of 2020

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶43

ORAL ORDER

¶44

The plaintiff is before this court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 21.01.2020 passed on applications filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC and under Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.639/2010 by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge and CJM, Chickballapur.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶46

The suit in O.S.No.639/2010 is filed by the petitioner herein before the jurisdictional civil court at Chickballapur seeking the relief of declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, the contesting defendants have filed their written

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:52692 WP No. 3152 of 2020

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

statement and opposed the suit claim. When the suit was

¶50

at the stage of addressing the final arguments, four applications were filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Application under Section 151 of CPC was filed with a prayer to reopen the stage of the case, application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC was filed with a prayer to recall P.W.1 for further examinationin-chief, application under Order VII Rule 14(A) read with Section 151 of CPC was filed with a prayer to permit the plaintiff to produce five additional documents and another application under Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC was filed to permit the plaintiff to file a list of witnesses whom the plaintiff intends to examine.

¶51

Objections were filed on behalf of the contesting defendants to the aforesaid applications.

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:52692 WP No. 3152 of 2020

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

The Trial Court, vide the order impugned, has rejected only two application which were filed under Section 151 of CPC and under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC.

¶56

Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this court.

¶57

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the suit is filed seeking relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. When the said suit was at the stage of addressing final arguments, the aforesaid four applications were filed on behalf of the plaintiff. On reading the averments found in the applications, it appears that the plaintiff intends to produce five additional documents and for the said purpose, a prayer is made to reopen the stage of the case and recall P.W.1 for the purpose of his further examination-in-chief. The Trial Court has passed orders only on the applications filed under Section 151 of CPC and under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC, without even taking

¶58

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:52692 WP No. 3152 of 2020

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

into consideration the application filed under Order VII Rule 14(A) of CPC, wherein a prayer is made by the plaintiff to produce the additional documents. In addition to the aforesaid three applications, yet another application is made by the plaintiff under Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 of CPC with a prayer to permit him to file a list of additional witnesses whom he intends to examine. Since the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the applications on which the impugned orders have been passed are primarily to enable the plaintiff to produce the additional documents, the particulars of which have been mentioned in the application which is filed under Order VII Rule 14(A) of CPC, orders ought to have been passed by the Trial Court even on the said application. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the Trial Court to consider the aforesaid four applications afresh on its merits and pass appropriate orders.

¶61

Accordingly, the following:

¶62

8 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:52692 WP No. 3152 of 2020

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

ORDER

¶66

i. The writ petition is allowed;

¶67

ii. The impugned order dated 21.01.2020 passed on applications filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC and under Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.639/2010 by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge and CJM, Chickballapur, is set aside;

¶68

iii. The matter stands remitted to the Trial Court with a direction to consider the said applications along with the other two applications which are filed on behalf of the plaintiff and pass fresh orders on merits after hearing the parties;

¶69

iv. It is needless to state that since the applications are filed in the year 2020 and the suit is of the year 2010, the Trial Court shall dispose of the aforesaid applications on

¶70