Sri Mohan R Vs Smt Anjali M @ Anjali Madankumar

SRI. MOHAN R, S/O MUNIRAMAIAH AGED 46 YEARS R/AT NO.66/49, 1^ST MAIN, OPP: ANJANEYA TEMPLE GARUDACHARPALYA MAIN ROAD GARUDACHARPALYA ROAD, BANGALORE - 48

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. GAGANDEEP E, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AJIT P B., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT. ANJALI M @ ANJALI MADANKUMAR W/O LATE MADAN KUMAR, BADIGER AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT 52, SAI NIVAS, 3^RD MAIN, 4^TH CROSS SECTOR A, AMRUTHANAGAR BANGALORE - 92

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. G R MOHAN., ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 04.02.2022 PASSED BY THE XIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:6102 WP No. 5908 of 2022

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

HALL, BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.26082/2018 ON IA NO.11/2021 AND 12/2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND ETC

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The present petition seeks to challenge and order

¶26

dated 04.02.2022 passed by the learned XIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru in O.S.No.26082/2018 on I.As.11 and 12 (hereinafter ‘Impugned Order’). By the Impugned Order, both I.As.11

¶27

and 12 were dismissed by the learned Trial Court. The Court further directed that costs shall follow in the event of the suit in single course and fix the matter for further cross examination of PW1.

¶28

This Court by interim order dated 19.04.2022 passed a direction directing that the Trial Court proceedings remains stayed in the mater. This order has continued as is still today. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6102 WP No. 5908 of 2022

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

that in his application he has set out that the marking of

¶32

the document which had already been produced earlier has inadvertently been left out. He seeks to rely upon paragraph 2 of affidavit to I.A.No.11 in this behalf. A similar contention has been raised in I.A.No.12 as well.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that I.A.Nos.11 and 12 are pari materia to each other. However, he does not dispute the fact that the matter has been stayed at the stage of cross examination of PW1. Learned counsel further submits that the document sought to be relied upon is not a sale deed but a certified copy of the sale deed.

¶34

The record reflects that in the applications I.A.Nos.11 and 12 in para 2 to the affidavits (which are pari materia to each other) sets out that during the time of marking of the documents one certified copy of the sale deed dated

¶35

24.03.2006 did not get marked due to an oversight. Para

¶36

2 of the affidavit is set out below:

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:6102 WP No. 5908 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

“I submit that the Plaintiff has filed the above suit for the relief of bare injunction and consequential reliefs. We have filed written statement and Evidence Affidavit. During time of marking of document which are produced along with necessary application, one documents i.e., signed certified copy of Sale deed dated 24.03.2006 is not got marked due to oversight. Hence the application to produce the document”.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage

¶42

submits that he would be satisfied if he be permitted to exhibit this document and by recalling PW1 on one date. He submits that he would be taking no further opportunity before the Trial Court. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of expediency, this suggestion is acceptable, provided however, his objections qua the document be considered by the learned Trial Court.

¶43

In view of the consensus between the parties, the petition is disposed of granting the petitioner/defendant an opportunity to exhibit the document on next date of hearing before the learned Trial Court. The respondent/plaintiff is at liberty to raise all his objections,

¶44

during the final arguments in accordance with law.

¶45