Karnataka High Court
Sri C Manju vs Smt Jayamma on 15 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:41697
WP No. 4454 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 4454 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. C. MANJU
S/O GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/O NO.373, 16TH CROSS,
ADHIPAMPA ROAD,
V.V. MOHALLA,
MYSURU-570002.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHRISTOPHER NOEL A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O THAMMANE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
R/O KANCHAGARAKOPPAL,
KESTHUR POST,
K.R. NAGARA TALUK,
Digitally signed MYSURU-571602.
by
MARKONAHALLI ...RESPONDENT
RAMU PRIYA (BY SRI. VIJAY A.M., ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED
BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,
MYSORE, DISMISSING THE APPLICATION / IA NOs.25 TO 28 VIDE
ORDER DATED 25.01.2024 IN O.S. NO.671/2014 AND OTHER
DIRECTIONS. COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IS HEREWITH
PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEUXRE-A.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:41697
WP No. 4454 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The defendant in O.S. No.671/2014 on the file of the
Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Mysuru, (henceforth
referred to as 'the Trial Court') has filed this writ petition
challenging an order dated 25.01.2024 by which, I.A. No.25
filed by him to reopen his evidence and I.A No.26 to recall
DW.1 and I.A. Nos.27 and 28 seeking permission to produce
additional documents and to condone the delay in filing
documents were rejected.
2. The suit in O.S. No.671/2014 was filed for
declaration of title by the plaintiff / respondent herein and for
consequential injunction in respect of a residential house. The
plaintiff claimed that she was the lawful owner of the suit
schedule property and that the defendant/petitioner herein was
attempting to interfere with her possession.
3. The suit was contested by the defendant who set up
adverse title in respect of the suit schedule property. After the
issues were framed and the evidence was adduced, the
NC: 2024:KHC:41697
defendant filed four applications, namely, I.A. No.25 under
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short,
'CPC') to reopen the stage of the suit, I.A. No.26 under Order
XVIII Rule 17 of CPC to recall the DW.1 for further
examination-in-chief and I.A. Nos.27 and 28 under Order VIII
Rule 1A of CPC for condonation of delay in producing the
documents and seeking permission to produce certain
additional documentary evidence.
4. The said applications were opposed by the plaintiff
on the ground that they were designed to protract the
proceedings and also that the documents sought to be
produced were available with the defendant when he was
examined in the first instance.
5. The Trial Court rejected all the applications in terms
of the impugned order primarily on the ground that the
documents sought to be produced by the defendant were
unnecessary for adjudication of the lis between the parties. It
also held that the documents were sought to be produced after
a lapse of nearly 11 years from the date of the defendant
obtaining them and no reason whatsoever was assigned for
delay in producing the said documents.
NC: 2024:KHC:41697
6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant
has filed this writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the defendant / petitioner
contended that the documents sought to be produced by the
defendant related to proceedings in a Court between the same
parties in respect of the suit schedule property and therefore,
an opportunity had to be granted to the defendant to place on
record additional documents. He contends that production of
these documents was necessary to establish the case of the
defendant and thus, the Trial Court committed an error in
rejecting permission to the defendant to produce the
documents and also disallowing further examination-in-chief of
DW.1.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff /
respondent contends that the documents sought to be
produced by the defendant were in his custody even at the time
when he was examined before the Trial Court. He submits that
no cogent reason is cited by the defendant to justify the delay
in producing the additional documents at such a belated stage.
Thus, he contends that the applications (I.A. Nos.25 to 28) are
designed to protract the proceedings before the Trial Court and
NC: 2024:KHC:41697
hence, the impugned order is justified and does not warrant
any interference.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner and the
respondent/plaintiff.
10. The suit is for declaration of title of the plaintiff in
respect of the suit schedule property and for consequential
relief of injunction. The suit property is a valuable house
property. The defendant has already set up adverse title to the
suit schedule property and therefore, the Trial Court must have
granted liberty to the parties to establish their respective case.
No doubt, the defendant could have produced these documents
at the earliest point in time as observed by the Trial Court. If
these documents, namely, the plaint, written statement and
deposition in O.S. No.1004/1999 were in respect of the same
property and between the same parties, the same had to be
looked into for a better appreciation of the case of the
defendant. Therefore, I.A. Nos.25, 26 and 27 deserve to be
allowed. However, in so far as I.A No.28 is concerned, the
defendant proposed to produce certified copy of the judgment
and decree passed in R.A. No.988/2009 passed by the Fast
NC: 2024:KHC:41697
Track Court-1, Mysuru, but the Trial Court has noted in the
impugned order that the certified copy of the judgment and
decree passed in R.A. No.988/2009 is already marked as
Ex.D4. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to again
produce the very same document. In that view of the matter,
the impugned order warrants interference to a limited extent.
However, the same cannot be unconditional in view of the
conduct of the defendant in sleeping over the proceedings and
attempting to produce the documents at a belated stage.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
i. This writ petition is allowed in part.
ii. The impugned order dated
25.01.2024 passed by the Principal Senior Civil
Judge and CJM., Mysuru on I.A. Nos.25, 26 and
27 is set aside. The applications filed by the
defendant, namely, I.A. Nos.25, 26 and 27 are
allowed. The defendant shall adduce further
evidence and produce all the documents as
sought in I.A. No.27 on the next date of hearing
before the Trial Court and also subject himself
NC: 2024:KHC:41697
for cross-examination by the plaintiff. If for any
reason, the defendant defaults in appearing
before the Trial Court on the next date of
hearing and fails to adduce evidence and
present himself for cross-examination, the Trial
Court may proceed to pass order based on the
available materials and dispose off the suit - O.S
No.671/2014 in accordance with law.
iii. I.A. No.28 filed by the defendant
under Order VIII Rule 1A of CPC., is rejected.
In view of disposal of this petition, I.A. No.1/2024 for
vacating interim order does not survive for consideration and
the same stands disposed off.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
SMA
