Smt Chinnakka vs Smt Munirathanam
2023 Latest Caselaw 9719 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Smt Chinnakka vs Smt Munirathanam on 7 December, 2023

Author: S.G.Pandit

Bench: S.G.Pandit

                                                   -1-
                                                              NC: 2023:KHC:44324
                                                            WP No. 27210 of 2023




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

                                               BEFORE
                                 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 27210 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
                      BETWEEN:

                            SMT. CHINNAKKA,
                            W/O. LATE MUNISWAMY,
                            AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
                            RESIDING AT:
                            BATARAYABAHALLI VILLAGE,
                            KEMPAPURA POST,
                            KYASAMABLLI HOBLI,
                            BANGARAPETE TALUK - 563 121.

                            ITS REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
                            SRI. NAREPPA,
                            AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
                                                                    ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. K.P. BHUVAN, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
A K CHANDRIKA
                      AND:
Location: High
Court Of Karnataka
                      1.    SMT. MUNIRATHANAM,
                            S/O. LATE RAMAIHA,
                            AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

                      2.    SRI. GANGAPPA,
                            S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,
                            AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

                      3.    SMT. RATHNAMMA,
                            S/O. GANGAPPA,
                             -2-
                                     NC: 2023:KHC:44324
                                   WP No. 27210 of 2023




     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

4.   SRI. RANGANATHA,
     S/O. GANGAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.

5.   SRI MANJUNATHA,
     S/O. GANGAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

6.   SRI. PAPANNA,
     S/O. NYATAPPA.

7.   SRI. PILLAPPA,
     S/O. LATE RAMAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

8.   SRI. SRINIVASA,
     S/O. LATE RAMAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

     RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 8 ARE
     RESIDING AT BATARAYANAHALLI
     VILLAGE, KEMPAPURA POST,
     KYASAMBALLI HOBLI,
     BANGARAPET TALUK - 563 114.

9.   SRI. RAMACHANDRA,
     S/O. LATE DUMMANAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT: POTHARAJANAHALLI VILLAGE,
     BETHAMANGALA POST AND HOBLI,
     BANGARAPETE TALUK - 563 114.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
                              -3-
                                          NC: 2023:KHC:44324
                                       WP No. 27210 of 2023




     THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:20.11.2023 PASSED ON IAS NO. 18
TO 20 U/O 18 RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND U/S 151
OF CPC FOR RECALL AND REOPEN THE CASE FOR ADDUCING
THE FURTHER EVIDENCE PW1 AND ORDER 7 RULE 14 (3) R/W
SECTION 151 FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IN OSN O.
166/2014 BY THE LEARNED 1ST ADDL CIVIL JUDGE (JR-DIV)
AT KGF AS PER ANNX-E AND ETC.,

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

The petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.166/2014 on the file

of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, K.G.F, is before this

Court aggrieved by order dated 20.11.2023 rejecting

I.A.Nos.18 to 20 filed under Order 18 Rule 17 r/w 151 of

CPC as well as Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC to re-open,

recall PW1 for further evidence and for production of

additional documents.

2. Heard Sri.K.P. Bhuvan, learned counsel for the

petitioner and perused the writ petition papers.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the suit of the plaintiff is one for bare injunction. The

NC: 2023:KHC:44324

plaintiff completed her evidence in the year 2021 and

defendants completed their evidence in the year 2023.

Thereafter, when the suit was set down for arguments, the

petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.18 to 20 to re-open, recall

PW.1 for further evidence and sought for production of

additional documents. Learned counsel would submit that

the trial Court committed an error in rejecting those

applications. Further learned counsel would submit that to

establish the case of the plaintiff, the documents which the

petitioner intends to produce are very much necessary.

Thus learned counsel would pray for allowing the

applications.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff

and perused the writ petition papers.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that suit of the plaintiff is one for bare injunction. The plaintiff completed her evidence in the year 2021 and defendants completed their evidence in the year 2023. Thereafter when the suit was set down for arguments, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.18 to 20 to reopen, recall

NC: 2023:KHC:44324

PW.1 for further evidence and sought to produce additional documents. But for the present, the suit is set down for judgment. Learned counsel would submit that the trial Court committed an error in rejecting those applications. Further learned counsel would submit that to establish the case of the plaintiff the documents, which the petitioner intends to produce are very much necessary. Thus learned counsel would pray for allowing the applications.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that no extraordinary ground is made out to reopen the case for further evidence of PW.1 and for production of additional documents when the suit is set down for judgment. There is no merit in the writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CT:SNN