Dismissed¶51

Smt. Sudhamani v. Sri. Shivaraju

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2025WP/39413/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ petition; Order 18 Rule 17 CPC; Section 151 CPC; recall witness PW-1; re-open case; further examination-in-chief; mark document; probate cancellation; Misc.No.17/2014 district court order; partition suit O.S.No.256/2014 Ramanagara; affidavit lacking reasons and relevance; negligence and lack of bona fides of plaintiff; matter posted for arguments; dismissal of I.A.; expeditious disposal direction.

What did the court decide?

The affidavit filed in support of the application disclosed neither the purpose of the document sought to be produced, nor its relevance, nor the reasons for recalling PW-1 and reopening the case; the trial court's observation to that effect was right. ¶43

Smt. Sudhamani Vs Sri. Shivaraju — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 227 deserves interference with the trial court's order dismissing the I.A. filed to recall PW-1 by re-opening the case for further examination-in-chief of PW-1 and to mark a document (district court order in Misc.No.17/2014 relating to the probate).

¶34

Court's answer

¶43

Ratio / Principle

There has been negligence on the part of the plaintiff at every stage; despite an earlier allowed application for reopen and recall, the plaintiff let the evidence close and the matter reach arguments before filing this application.

¶43

Key takeaways

There are no bonafides on the part of the plaintiff; the trial court rightly dismissed the application, and this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well-considered order.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-CPC) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiffs in partition suit O.S.No.256/2014 (Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Ramanagara), challenging dismissal of their I.A. under Order 18 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC dated 25.06.2019, which sought recall of PW-1 by re-opening the case for further examination-in-chief and marking of the district court order in Misc.No.17/2014 by which, per the plaintiffs, the probate relied upon by the defendants stood set aside. Held: the affidavit disclosed no reasons, purpose or relevance of the document; an identical application had been allowed as early as 2019, yet the plaintiff allowed evidence to close and the matter to reach arguments before refiling; there is negligence at every stage and no bonafides on the plaintiff's part; the trial court rightly dismissed the application and this Court declines to interfere. Writ petition dismissed; trial court directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible; all I.As. in the writ petition closed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:5560 WP No. 39413 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 39413 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SUDHAMANI W/O. LATE. SHIVALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶9

ARUN S S/O. LATE. SHIVALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶10

C.S.ASHA D/O. LATE. SHIVALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

ALL ARE R/AT BEHIND NETAJI POPULAR SCHOOL, WARD NO. 30, MALLESHWARAM EXTENSION, IJOOR, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT -562 159

¶13

(BY MS.THANIMA BEKAL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI. SHIVARAJU S/O. LATE. S.V.SHIVANA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT CHANNAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, ANJANAPURA POST, KAILANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGAR TALUK AND DIST- 571 511

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

SMT. SHIVARATHNAMMA W/O. SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:5560 WP No. 39413 of 2019

¶20

D/O. LATE. S.V.SHIVANA, R/AT KONAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, GANAL POST, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAKPURA TALUK, RAMANAGAR DIST- 562 117

¶21

SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O. KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ANBOUT 48 YEARS D/O. LATE. S.V.SHIVANA, R/AT NO. 26/A, GURUPPANAPALYA, BANNERUGATTA ROAD, BANGALORE -560 029

¶22

SMT. MANJULA W/O. PUTTASWAMY, D/O. LATE. S.V.SHIVANA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT VANDARAGUPPE VILLAGE, SILK FARM POST, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANGARA DIST- 571 502

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA GOWDA K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2, R3, R4- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER ON I.A. DATED 25.06.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.256/2014 BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, RAMANAGARA VIDE ANNEXURE-C.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ‘DISMISSAL’, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the orders

¶30

passed on I.A. under order 18 rule 17 r/w of 151 of CPC in

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:5560 WP No. 39413 of 2019

¶33

O.S.No.256/2014 dated 25.06.2019 by the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Ramanagara, the plaintiff is before this court.

¶34

The petitioner/plaintiff had filed a suit for partition. The present I.A is filed to recall PW-1 by reopening the case for leading further examination in chief of PW-1 and also to mark the document. The trial court by order impugned had dismissed the said application to recall the PW-1 by re-opening the case for leading further examination in chief of PW-1. The court observed that on perusal of the affidavit filed by the plaintiffs which do not disclose about the documents that have to be produced by the plaintiff and how they are relevant to the present suit. Without producing the documents and explaining about the documents only seeking permission to lead further examination of chief of PW-1 cannot be permitted. Moreover, the matter is already posted for arguments, at this stage IAs., without proper reason is filed which shows the negligence of the plaintiff and also it is abuse of process of law and accordingly dismissed the petition.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/ petitioner submits that court has failed to consider the fact that the

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:5560 WP No. 39413 of 2019

¶38

purpose of recalling and re-opening the case, they want to mark the document that is passed by the district court in Misc.No.17/2014 which is an important document, where it is the specific case of the defendants that the probate is granted and by virtue of this order the same is set aside. It is submitted that the court without considering all these aspects and without looking at the substantial justice had dismissed the application. It is submitted that if this application is allowed no prejudice would be caused to the defendant and on hyper technical grounds this application is dismissed.

¶39

[ 4. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant submits that infact earlier a similar application is filed by the plaintiff on 24.01.2019. On 06.02.2019 the learned counsel for the defendant submitted that I.A. may be allowed and on costs of Rs.1,200/- reopen the case for further examination in chief of PW-1. As there was no representation of behalf of the plaintiff and counsel, the court had closed evidence of PW-1 and posted the matter for arguments, at that stage this application came to be filed. He submits that when the opportunity is given the petitioner , he has failed to examine PW-1. He submits that this is only for the purpose of dragging on the proceedings, they are

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:5560 WP No. 39413 of 2019

¶42

coming up with one application or the other and the court had rightly considered all these aspects and had rightly dismissed the application.

¶43

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The suit is for partition. The defendant is relying on a probate. According to the plaintiff that probate was cancelled on his application in the year 2016 itself. Already in 2019 an application is filed, the court had allowed the application for reopen and recall. The plaintiff for the reasons best known to has kept quite then the evidence is closed and the matter is posted for arguments, at that stage this application is filed. The reasons that are given by the court is that the application do not contain what is the reason and for what purpose they want to recall PW-1 for further examination and to reopen the case. This court have also perused the affidavit that is filed, as rightly observed by the court there are no reasons stated what is the purpose of that document and how is it relevant and why they want to recall and reopen the case. It appears that at every stage there is negligence on the part of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not pursuing the matter and coming up with these kind of applications and the minimum

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:5560 WP No. 39413 of 2019

¶46

care is not taken to even state what is that he requires in spite

¶47

of an earlier order passed by the court.

¶48

In the considered opinion of this court, there are no bonafides on the part of the plaintiff and the court had rightly dismissed the application and this court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the court.

¶49

Accordingly, the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51