Sri R R Sathyamurthy Vs Sri N v Venkataraju

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE / QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON IA NO.XII DATED 25/01/2024, PASSED IN OS NO.39/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHAMARAJANAGAR, VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.,

¶30

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

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44892 WP No. 4596 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

The plaintiffs are 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 25.01.2024 passed on I.A.No.12 in O.S.No.39/2018 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Chamarajanagar.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶37

The suit in O.S.No.39/2018 is filed by the petitioners before the jurisdictional Court at

¶38

Chamarajanagar, seeking the relief of specific performance of the Agreement for sale dated 24.06.2010 and 21.02.2011. In the said suit, contesting defendants have filed their written statement and opposed the prayer made in the suit. I.A.No.12 was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order XXVI Rule 10A of CPC with a prayer to refer the disputed signatures and thumb impressions found in some of the documents exhibited during the course of

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44892 WP No. 4596 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

plaintiffs evidence with the admitted signatures of defendant Nos.1, 2 and 6 found in registered Agreement for Sale dated 07.02.2013 and also in their vakalath and written statement.

¶42

The said application was opposed by the contesting defendants by filing objections. The trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected the said application and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs are before this Court.

¶43

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that since the signatures found in the material documents namely, Exs.P1 and Ex.P4 itself are disputed, for the purpose of proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties expert opinion with regard to the signatures and thumb impressions of the parties found in the disputed documents are essential and the trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter.

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44892 WP No. 4596 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submits that application was filed

¶47

at a premature stage even before DW.1 was crossexamined on behalf of the plaintiffs. He submits that after the cross-examination of defendants' witnesses is completed, if necessary, the petitioners may file a fresh application seeking the very same relief in respect of the material documents.

¶48

He submits that though this Court has directed

¶49

the trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed in MFA No.9225/2018, the suit is not yet disposed of. Therefore, trial Court may be directed to dispose of the suit within a specific time frame.

¶50

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order impugned may be set-aside and application in I.A.No.12 may be dismissed as not pressed

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44892 WP No. 4596 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh application seeking the very same relief after cross-examination of the defendants' evidence is completed, if found necessary. He submits that the defendants' witness shall be crossexamined on behalf of the plaintiffs without seeking unnecessary adjournments before the trial Court and plaintiffs shall fully co-operate for expeditious disposal of the suit.

¶54

Submissions made on both the sides are placed on record.

¶55

Accordingly, the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶58

ii. The order impugned dated 25.01.2024 passed on I.A.No.12 is O.S.No.39/2018 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Chamarajanagar is set-aside .

¶59

iii. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, application in I.A.No.12 is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to

¶60

7 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:44892 WP No. 4596 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

file a fresh application seeking similar relief after the defendants' witnesses are cross- examined, if found necessary, and if such an application is filed, the trial Court shall dispose of the said application without being influenced by observations made in the order impugned.

¶64

iv. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that defendants' witnesses will be cross-examined before the trial Court without seeking unnecessary adjournment is placed on record.

¶65

v. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible but not later than 31.07.2026.

¶66

vi. All contentions argued by both the parties are kept open.

¶67

vii. Pending applications do not survive for consideration.

¶68

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶69

rv, Sl No.: 22 CT: BHK

Sri R R Sathyamurthy v. Sri N v Venkataraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R R Sathyamurthy v. Sri N v Venkataraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akbar Ali Khan Vs Hussain Bi @ Bibijan

Mr Anjanappa Vs Sugada Bai

Jacintha Mathew Vs Rosalind Fernandes Alias Rosalind K a

Smt. Jalajakshi Vs Sri. Devaraju R

Sri Srikanth Y Vs State by

Sri M Lakshmeesha Vs Smt. M Gowramma