Sri Chandranna vs Dhanakoti
2022 Latest Caselaw 5743 Kant

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

             W.P. NO.5020 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN

SRI CHANDRANNA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
S/O LATE MALLANNA,
R/AT ALUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI,
HIRIYUR TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577501

                                            ...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SHIVALEELA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI MURTHY K, ADVOCATE)

AND

      DHANAKOTI
      SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

1 (i). SRI D USHARANI
       AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

1(ii). SRI D KUMARESHA
       AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
       D/O G DHANAKOTI

1(iii). H D SRINIVASA
        AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
                                  2




     R1 (i) TO (iii) ARE
     CHILDREN OF LATE G DHANAKOTI AND
     R/AT HOSPITAL ROAD,
     HIRIYUR TALUK,
     CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

2.   SMT. SOUBAGYA
     W/O LATE D JAYASHEELA NAIDU,
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
     MASIYAPPANA BADAVANE
     KASABA HOBLI, HIRIYUR TALUK,
     CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577501.

                                                  ....RESPONDENTS

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-A ORDER DATED 16.02.2022 PASSED
ON I.A.NO.27 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC TO REOPEN
THE CASE FOR FURTHER PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE AND IA NO.28
UNDER ORDER XVI RULE 1 AND READ WITH SECTION 151 OF
CPC TO SUMMON THE WITNESS IN O.S.NO.37/2011 ON THE
FILE OF LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HIRIYUR
DISMISSING BOTH I.A'S NO.27 AND 28 IN THE SUIT AND
ALLOW THIS W.P. AND ETC.,

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in Original Suit No.

37 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,

Hiriyur, challenging the order dated 16.02.2022 passed on IAs.

XXVII and XXVIII.

2. Brief facts are that the plaintiff has filed suit against

the defendants for declaration with consequential relief of

permanent injunction. The said suit is contested by the

respondent/defendants. In the meanwhile the plaintiff has filed

application-IA.XVII under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure

to re-open the case for plaintiff's further evidence and IA.XVIII

to furnish list of witness by condoning the delay. The said

applications were resisted by the defendants. The Trial Court,

after considering the material on record by order dated

16.02.2022 produced at Annexure-A, dismissed the applications.

Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has presented this

Writ Petition.

3. Smt Shivaleela, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner argued that, the since the suit is filed for relief of

declaration and consequential relief permanent injunction, an

opportunity be given to the plaintiff to prove the case on merits.

She further submitted that the suit is posted for judgment today.

4. In the light submission made by learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, I have carefully considered the

finding recorded by the trial Court, wherein, the plaintiff was

examined as PW2 to prove the possession over the suit schedule

property and in earlier two occasions, the plaintiff has filed

similar applications to reopen the case for further evidence and

same was accepted by the trial Court and accordingly, the trial

Court had given opportunity to complete the evidence on

05.11.2019 and 09.3.2020 and thereafter, the defendants have

adduced evidence before the trial Court. At the stage, after

hearing both the parties on merits on final arguments by the trial

Court, the plaintiff has filed the instant applications. Taking into

consideration the fact, particularly, the finding recorded by the

trial Court at Paragraph 8 of the impugned order, I am of the

view that, the petitioner has not made out a case for

interference in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE SB