Karnataka High Court
Smt Parameshwari Amma vs Shri M Subramanya Vaidya on 18 July, 2012
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ON THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NOS.41052-55 OF 2010(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
1 SMT PARAMESHWARI AMMA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
W/O SHRI. K. SHAMA BHAT,
R/AT CHEMBARPU KAROPADY VILLAGE,
P.O. KANYANA BANTWAL TALUK,
D.K DISTRICT
2 MRS. SARVAMANGALA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
W/O SHRI GANAPATHI,
R/AT VARANGAON BHUSAVAL DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY HER
POWER OF ATTORNEY
SHRI. K. SHAM BHAT,
S/O. SHRI KRISHNA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VENUGOPAL M.S. FOR M/S. A KRISHNA BHAT &
ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)
AND :
SHRI M SUBRAMANYA VAIDYA
2
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O. SHRI M. GANGADHARA VAIDYA,
R/ AT HARADY, NETAJI ROAD,
PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE,
PUTTUR - 574 201,
D.K DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B M KRISHNA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
*****
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ANNEXURE-A, ORDERS DATED 18.11.2010 PASSED ON
I.ANO.30, 31, 32 AND 33 IN O.S.NO.81/1994 ON THE FILE OF
THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) PUTTUR, D.K
AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration. When the matter was listed for arguments, the plaintiffs filed I.As.30 to
33. The trial Court by the impugned orders dismissed the same. Hence, the present petitions.
3
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned orders are bad in law and liable to be set aside. That the applications should have been allowed for the reasons set out therein and to meet the ends of justice.
3. The learned Counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order.
4. Heard counsels and examined the impugned orders.
5. I.A.No.30 has been filed under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC to receive the documents after condoning the delay. It is contended that the documents are required to indicate that the plaint schedule property is not plotted in FMB. That he could not produce the same before the Court earlier. The defendant objected to the same stating that the parties to the suit have already closed their evidence and the matter was posted for arguments. The documents are not 4 relevant to the case on hand and the required documents are alredy before the Court. The trial Court while dismissing I.A.No.30 held that the plaintiffs have failed to show as to in what manner the said documents are relevant to their case and to decide as to whether the plotting is effected in the suit schedule property or not, the required documents are already produced by both the plaintiffs and the defendant. As admitted by both the parties, the plotting is effected as per the order of the trial Court. Since the case is not yet decided on merits, the same has not been entered in the FMB. It further held that the suit is of the year 1994 and the plaintiffs are not assisting the Court in deciding the matter expeditiously as per law and trying to protract the proceedings and hence the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.30.
6. I do not find any error committed by the trial Court that calls for any interference. The trial Court has given adequate reasons while dismissing the I.A.No.30. That the required documents are already on record, that the plotting has 5 been effected in terms of the order passed by the trial Court and since the case has yet not been decided, the same is not entered in the FMB. These reasons are valid reasons in order to dismiss I.A.No.30 and the same is just and proper and does not call for any interference. The order passed on I.A.No.30 is sustained.
7. I.A.No.31 has been filed under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to recall PW-1 for the purpose of marking documents produced under I.A.No.30 and to give evidence in respect of Ex.D8 to Ex.D14. I.A.No.32 is filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC to re-open the plaintiff's case.
8. In view of rejection of I.A.No.30, the consideration of I.A.No.31 and I.A.No.32 would not arise for consideration. Hence, the trial Court rightly dismissed I.A.Nos.31 and 32.
9. The order passed by the trial Court on I.As.31 and 32 are just and proper and does not call for interference. Consideration of I.As.31 and 32 would arise only when I.A.No.30 6 is allowed. Hence, rejection of I.As.31 and 32 is appropriate and does not call for interference.
10. I.A.No.33 has filed by the plaintiff under Order 16 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC to issue summons to the Tahsildar, Puttur for the purpose of leading evidence. The plaintiff has stated that they have subsequently produced the endorsement issued by the Taluk Office and the copy of the application before the Court. In order to prove the same, the Tahsildar, Puttur has to be summoned to speak about the same. The defendant objected to the same stating that the evidence was closed and the matter was posted for arguments. That the evidence of the Tahsildar is unnecessary. The trial Court while rejecting the application was of the view that since I.A.NO.30 has since been rejected, hence, giving evidence on those documents would not arise. The relevancy of the evidence of the Tahsildar has not been explained by the plaintiff. The evidence of the plaintiff is closed long back. Hence, the trial Court rejected I.A.No.33.
7
11. The reasoning given by the trial Court is just and proper. When the applications have been filed bereft of any reasoning, the same have been considered by the trial Court and rejected the same by giving adequate and valid reasons. Under the circumstances, the orders passed on I.A.Nos.30 to 33 are just and proper and does not call for interference.
12. Accordingly, the writ petitions being devoid of merits are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Prs*