Karnataka High Court
Smt Chinnakka W/O Hanamanth Biradar vs Krishnappa S/O Govinda Nagaraddi on 7 November, 2022
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
WP No. 104711 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 104711 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT CHINNAKKA W/O HANAMANTH BIRADAR,
AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. LINGANUR, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587301.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISH A.YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KRISHNAPPA S/O GOVINDA NAGARADDI,
AGE. 92 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. LINGANUR, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587301.
2. SMT. DUNDAWWA W/O KRISHNAPPA
NAGARADDI, AGE. 82 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
VISHAL
VISHAL
NINGAPPA
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL R/O. LINGANUR, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
Location:
PATTIHAL Dharwad
Date:
2022.11.09
DIST. BAGALKOT 587301.
19:05:36
+0530
3. SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O KRISHNAPPA
PUCHANNAVAR, AGE. 67 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SHIRABUR, TQ. & DIST. BIJAPUR-587117.
-2-
WP No. 104711 of 2022
4. SMT. SURVANA W/O RAMESH DODAMANI,
AGE. 64 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SENIOR HOTEL OPPOSITE,
TQ. & DIST. BAGALKOT-587103.
5. KRISHNAPPA S/O HANAMAPPA PUCHANNAVAR,
AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SHIRABUR, TQ. & DIST. BIJAPUR-587117.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE C/R2;
SRI. SABEEL AHMAD, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
NOTICE TO R2, R3 & R4 IS DISPENSED WITH)
This Writ petition is filed under ARticles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY SUCH WRIT OR DIRECTION TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2022 PASSED BY THE
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI, ON IA
NOS.23, 24 AND 25 IN OS NO.114/2010 VIDE ANNEXURE
J, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for reopening the evidence so as to facilitate the production of certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2014 in O.S. No.114/2010.
-3-WP No. 104711 of 2022
2. It is not in dispute that there was indeed a litigation between the petitioner and the respondents in O.S.No.24/2012 and a decree has also been passed on 28.09.2018. According to the petitioner, there are certain observations in the said judgment which would through same light on the title of the defendants. At the same time, it is the case of the respondents that the said observations were made on the basis of the Judgment and Decree passed in the suit, which has been set aside in the appeal.
3. Be that as it may, since the matter is before the Trial Court on record for consideration of two issues framed by the Appellate Court, it would be appropriate to permit the petitioner to produce the Judgment which according to the petitioner supports her case.
4. The evidentiary value of the document which is sought to be produced would have to be independently adjudicated and the very production of the said evidence cannot be denied. I am of the view that the impugned -4- WP No. 104711 of 2022 order cannot be sustained as only reason set forth in the order is that the applications have been made belatedly. The impugned order is set aside and consequently, I.A.Nos.XXIII, XXIV and XXV filed by the petitioner- plaintiff are allowed.
5. It is hereby made clear that passing of this order shall not be construed as rendering any opinion on the evidentiary value of the documents that is sought to be produced and the Trial Court shall independently assess the evidentiary value of the document that is sought to be produced by the petitioner.
6. As suit is of the year 2010 and the matter is send back to the Trial Court on remand, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 18.11.2022 and take further instructions in the matter.
SD/-
JUDGE Vnp* & CKK