Karnataka High Court
Shivajirao Balagouda Patil vs Flt. Lt. Kuleep Shivajirao Patil (Retd) on 15 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13261
WP No. 101288 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO. 101288 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVAJIRAO BALAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 83 YEARS,
OCC: ADVOCATE & AGRICULTURE,
2. VIJAYA
W/O. SHIVAJIRAO PATIL,
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
3. DEEPALI
D/O. SHIVAJIRAO PATIL,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
GIRIJA A 4. INDRAJEET
BYAHATTI
S/O. SHIVAJIRAO PATIL,
Digitally
signed by
AGE: 34 YEARS,
GIRIJA A OCC: BUILDING CONSTRUCTION &
BYAHATTI
INTERIORS DECORATOR,
ALL ARE R/O: KALKHAMB VILLAGE,
POST: MUCHANDI,
TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI-5900016.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13261
WP No. 101288 of 2018
AND:
1. FLT. LT. KULEEP SHIVAJIRAO PATIL (RETD)
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: TECH SERVICE BUSINESS,
R/O: RS NO.206, SMRUTHI, RANADE ROAD,
HINDWADI, BELAGAVI-590011.
2. DR. RUPALI KIRAN LUGADE,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: MEDICAL PRACTITIONER,
R/O: AGARKAR ROAD, TILAKWADI,
BELAGAVI-590006.
3. SONALI AVINASH LONDHE,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: BENGALURU,
PRESENTLY AT: RS.NO.206,
SMRUTHI, RANADE ROAD,
HINDWADI, BELAGAVI-590011.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ASHOK A. PATIL, ADV. FOR C/R1 IN CP NO-20162/18;
SRI B.S. KAMATE, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3;)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT
QUASHING THE ORDERS ON IA NO.VIII TO X AND XII DATED
10.01.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO. 195/2013 BY THE IV
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BELAGAVI VIDE
ANNEXURE-"K".
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13261
WP No. 101288 of 2018
ORDER
The petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.195/2013, on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi.
2. The suit is filed for partition and separate possession. When the matter was posted for arguments, the respondents herein, who are the plaintiffs, filed applications for reopening the case for framing of an additional issue and also for leading fresh evidence. The said applications have been allowed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants therein have preferred this writ petition.
3. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court, in the interest of justice, to give maximum opportunity for the parties concerned to prove their case, has allowed the aforementioned applications. I do not see any reason to interfere in the well reasoned order of the trial Court.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13261 WP No. 101288 of 2018
4. It is needless to state that the petitioners herein are always at liberty to object marking of documents, if they are sought to be marked contrary to the provisions of law and the trial Court while framing the additional issue will not blindly accept the contention of the defendants and will frame the additional issue by imposing the burden of proof on a person, who alleges the said fact.
Writ petition stands disposed of with the aforementioned observations.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab Ct-mck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53