Karnataka High Court
Vijayakumar S/O Basavantapap ... vs Shriman Veerappa Pawadeppa ... on 16 November, 2022
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
W.P. No.104719 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 104719 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
VIJAYAKUMAR S/O BASAVANTAPAP KAMADOLLI,
AGE 54 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: RAJENDRA NAGA, HIGH SCHOOL ROAD,
HAVERI, AT. TQ & DIST: HAVERI,
PIN CODE: 581110.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P G MOGALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRIMAN VEERAPPA PAWADEPPA ACHACHARIS
VISHWABRAHMANA VIDYA PRASARA TRUST, HAVERI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE & CHAIRMAN,
MANAPPA S/O HEMANDREPPA PATTAR,
AGE MAJOR, (EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN)
R/O. BEHIND J.H.COLEGE, HAVERI,
TQ & DIST. HAVERI, P.C.NO.581110.
2. SMT. RATNA W/O MOHAN DURGAD,
AGE 54 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O.RAJENDRA NAGAR, HIGH SCHOOL ROAD,
HAVERI, AT. TQ. & DIST: HAVERI
P.C. NO.581110.
3. SMT. ASHA W/O VEERABHADRAPPA METI,,
AGE 53 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O. SHANTINIKETANA NAGAR,
-2-
W.P. No.104719 of 2022
KELAGERI ROAD, DHARWAD,
AT, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD,
P.C. NO.580001.
4. STM. VIJAYA @ VIJU W/O BASAVARAJ MAGER,
AGE 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HUDCO COLONY, GADAG, P.C.NO.
RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE THE LRS OF
BASAVNTAPPA S/OKYATAPPAKAMADOLLI
WHO WAS DEFENDANT NO.1 IN THE SUIT.
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 02-06-
2022 IN O.S. NO.264/2008 C/W. O.S. NO. 260/2008 ,
261/2008, 263/2008 IN RESPECT OF EX.P-10, EX.P-11 AND EX.
P-19 MARKED IN THE EVIDENCE OF P.W. 1 AND ESCHIEVE EX.
P- 10, 11 AND 19 FROM THE EVIDENCE OF PW1 VIDE
ANNEXURE-C & ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Exs.P10 & P11, two lease agreements, were
admitted and marked in evidence overruling the objections
of the petitioner. The Trial Court while overruling the
objections held that the documents related to a tenancy of
eleven months and therefore were not required to be
registered.
W.P. No.104719 of 2022
2. A similar objection was raised in respect of
Ex.P19 but the Trial Court overruled the objection.
3. Subsequently, an application was filed for
recalling the said order. The Trial Court, however rejected
the said application.
4. In respect of Exs.P10 and P11, the Court has
stated that mere marking of the documents would not be
the proof of the documents and the evidentiary value of
the said documents would be considered at the time of
appreciation of the evidence. Thus, though the document
had been marked in evidence, the Trial Court by the
impugned order has specifically observed that admissibility
of these two documents in evidence would be considered
at the time of final hearing of the matter. Since the Trial
Court has held that the evidentiary value documents would
be examined at the time of final hearing, no harm or
prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. It is obvious
from the order of the Trial Court that, if the Trial Court
W.P. No.104719 of 2022
concludes that Exs.P10 & P11 were inadmissible in
evidence, the same will not be considered by the Trial
Court while rendering the judgment.
5. As far as Ex.P19 is concerned, the Trial Court
has noticed that it was only a monthly tenancy and fresh
objection regarding admissibility was not sustainable.
6. In my view, since the Trial Court has
categorically stated that the admissibility of Exs.P10 & P11
will be considered at the final hearing of the suit and that
Ex.P19 did not suffer any defect regarding admissibility,
the order of the Trial Court does not deserve interference
under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India and
the writ petition is therefore dismissed.
sd
JUDGE
Vnp*
