Karnataka High Court
Sri A Pillappa vs Smt Alyamma Jacob on 29 July, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29678
WP No. 19626 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 19626 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. A. PILLAPPA,
S/O LATE ARASAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR.
SMT. CHANNAMMA,
W/O LATE A. PILLAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS.
1. SMT. MUNIGURAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
D/O A. PILLAPPA,
2. SMT. PATALAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
D/O A. PILLAPPA
Digitally signed by
DHARMALINGAM
Location: HIGH 3. SMT. HANUMAKKA,
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
KARNATAKA D/O A. PILLAPPA
THE PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3
ARE R/AT MYDARAHALLI VILLAGE,
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI,
CHIKKABANAVARA POST,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 091.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. V. VIJAYASHEKARA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29678
WP No. 19626 of 2024
AND:
1. SMT. ALYAMMA JACOB,
W/O SRI. A.K. JACOB,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
2. SRI. A.K. JACOB,
S/O LATE A. KOCHUMMEN,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2
ARE RESIDING AT BETHEL COTTAGE,
FARM HOUSE, CONSTRUCTED IN SY. NO.33,
MYADARAHALLI VILLAGE,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
CHIKKABANAVAR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 091.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 04/07/2024 PASSED BY THE XXV
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE CCH-23
BENGALURU ON I.A NO. 46 AS PER ANNEXURE A, FILED BY
THE PETITIONERS NO.1 / DEFENDANT NO.2 UNDER ORDER 13
RULE 3 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC DATED 20/06/2024 IN O.S
NO.2495/1996 AS PER ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29678
WP No. 19626 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioners served a copy of the
writ petition on the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned
order at Annexure-A passed on I.A.No.46 in O.S.No.2495/1996.
The application was filed by defendant No.2 to reject the
irrelevant and inadmissible documents from the suit which were
sought to be taken on record on behalf of the plaintiffs. The
trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that all
such documents appeared to be relevant for the consideration
of the prayer made in the suit.
3. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the
considered opinion that whether a document is relevant or not,
it is open for the parties to contend in such manner and ensure
that the Court will not take such document into consideration
for the purpose of deciding the case. At this stage, when the
arguments have concluded and the matter is set down for
NC: 2024:KHC:29678
judgment, it would be impermissible for this Court to allow this
writ petition and set aside the impugned order.
4. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the
considered opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS)
JUDGE
rv
CT: BHK
