Karnataka High Court
M Ramanjaneya @ Ramanjini vs R Vishnu on 24 March, 2014
Author: Mohan .M.Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan .M. Shantanagoudar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.9925/2014 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
1. M RAMANJANEYA @ RAMANJINI
S/O MUNIANJANAPPA @ M.THAMMIAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MARUTHI NILAYA,
GEDDALAHALLI,
RMV II STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 094.
2. M.RAMAMURTHY
S/O MUNIANJANAPPA @ M.THAMMIAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.151, AKSHATH NIVAS,
GEDDALAHALLI,
RMV II STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 094.
...Petitioners
(By Sri B.S. Prasad, Adv.,)
AND :
R. VISHNU
S/O RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT #262/A, I MAIN,
-2-
ASHWATHNAGARA, KEB LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 094.
...Respondent
(By Sri S.M. Nanaiah, Sr. Counsel for
Sri. Hanumantharayapp D., Adv.,)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated
10.2.2014 in I.A. No. 45 of O.S. No. 6377/2004 pending on
the file of Addl. City Civil Judge, at Bangalore, (CCH.44), by
restricting the evidence, on the I.A. No. 45 filed Under Order
XVIII Rule 17 R/W Section 151 of CPC produce at
Annexure-P, etc..
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing,
this day the Court made the following:-
ORDER
By the impugned order, the Court below has rejected I.A.No.45 under which the petitioners- defendants wanted permission to lead evidence. The suit is pending since 2004. At an earlier point of time, the suit was dismissed. Against which RFA.No.2511/2007 was filed before this Court which came to be allowed in part remitting the matter to the Trial Court, with a direction to decide within six months. Despite that, the suit is proceeded with for -3- being more than six years. It is unfortunate that both parties are competing with each other to drag on the proceedings.
2. To put an end to the litigation and to avoid further remission, this Court proposes to give one more opportunity to the petitioners finally. It is made clear that the petitioners shall not take further adjournments.
3. Sri M.T. Nanaiah, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the Commissioner is also appointed and the report of the Commissioner is awaited. He prays for fixing the date in the month of June, 2004. Accordingly, the following order is made:-
The Court shall fix matter on 23.6.2014. On that day, the defendant shall lead his evidence. The evidence of the defendants' side shall be completed -4- within one week from that date. The suit itself shall be decided on merits without any further delay within two months thereafter.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE *ck/-