Karnataka High Court
Sri N Nagaraja Reddy vs Sri Subba Reddy on 1 August, 2018
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NOS. 31966-967/2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. Sri N. Nagaraja Reddy
Son of the late Narasa Reddy,
Aged about 71 years,
Residing at:
No.513, 16th Cross,
2nd 'A' Main, VI Sector,
HSR Layout,
Bengaluru - 560 034.
2. Smt. Govindamma B.
Wife of N. Nagaraja Reddy,
Aged about 66 years,
Residing at:
No.513, 16th Cross,
2nd 'A' Main, VI Sector,
HSR Layout,
Bengaluru - 560 034. ... Petitioners
(Petitioners are not claiming any benefits under Senior
Citizenship Act)
(By Sri. Rathnakar, Advocate for
Sri. Reny Sebastian, Advocate)
AND:
1. Sri Subba Reddy
Son of the late Nanjundappa,
Since deceased by his LRs.
2
1(a) Smt. Nanjamma
Wife of late Subba Reddy,
Aged about 85 years,
Residing at:
Doddathogur Village,
Begur Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Electronic City Post,
Bengaluru - 560 100.
1(b) Sri S. Ramachandra Reddy
Son of late Subba Reddy,
Aged about 61 years,
Residing at:
Doddathogur Village,
Begur Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Electronic City Post,
Bengaluru - 560 100.
1(c) Sri S. Venkatesh Reddy
Son of late Subba Reddy,
Aged about 57 years,
Residing at:
Doddathogur Village,
Begur Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Electronic City Post,
Bengaluru - 560 100.
1(d) Smt. S. Nagarathnamma
Daughter of late Subba Reddy,
Aged about 62 years,
Residing at:
Doddathogur Village,
Begur Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Electronic City Post,
Bengaluru - 560 100.
3
1(e) Smt. Vijayamma
Daughter of late Subba Reddy,
Wife of Doddappaya Reddy,
Aged about 50 years,
Residing at:
Doddathogur Village,
Begur Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Electronic City Post,
Bengaluru - 560 100.
1(f) Sri S. Srinivasa Reddy
Son of late Subba Reddy,
Aged about 47 years,
Residing at:
Doddathogur Village,
Begur Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Electronic City Post,
Bengaluru - 560 100.
[
1(g) Sri S. Narashima Reddy
Son of late Subba Reddy,
Aged about 42 years,
Residing at:
Doddathogur Village,
Begur Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Electronic City Post,
Bengaluru - 560 100.
1(h) Smt. P. Padmavathi
Wife of Kodandarama Reddy,
Aged about 40 years,
Residing at:
Doddathogur Village,
Begur Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Electronic City Post,
Bengaluru - 560 100. ...Respondents
[By Sri Sanket M. Yenagi, Advocate for C/R1(b)]
4
These writ petitions are filed under article 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-A the
common order passed on I.A.No.7 under Order XVIII Rule 17
read with Section 151 of the code of civil procedure on
19.06.2018 and on I.A.No.8 under Section 151 of the code of
civil procedure on 19.06.2018 and further order allowing the
applications of I.A.No.7 and I.A.No.8 in O.S.No.784/2009,
pending before 1st Addl. Civil Judge, at Bangalore Rural
District and etc.
These writ petitions coming on for 'preliminary
hearing' this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 19.06.2018 on I.A.Nos.7 and 8 in O.S.No.784/2009 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge at Bengaluru Rural District.
2. The petitioners are defendants and respondents are plaintiffs in O.S.No.784/2009 filed for specific performance of Agreement dated 28.10.1978. 5 After completion of the evidence of the parties, the matter was posted for arguments of the defendants. The defendants filed I.A.No.7 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC to adduce further evidence by way of examination- in-chief to clarify the evidence already recorded and I.A.No.8 under Section 151 of CPC to re-open the case. The said applications were rejected by the trail Court vide order dated 19.06.2018, which is impugned in the present writ petitions.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for Caveator/Respondent No.1(b) and perused the writ papers.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that I.A.No.7 is filed seeking permission to adduce further evidence by way of examination-in-chief to clarify the evidence already recorded. It is his further submission that to clarify the evidence already recorded on 16.12.2015, the defendants may be permitted to 6 further examine themselves and also I.A.No.8 to re-open the case to adduce further evidence. It is his case that trial Court while recording the evidence has recorded that "¤.¦.1 zÁR¯É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ PÁ®PÉÌ £À£ÀUÉ JµÀÄÖ ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì DVvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ 35 ªÀµÀðªÁVvÀÄÛ. ¤.¦.1 DUÀĪÀ PÁ®zÀ°è £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è vÀÄA¨Á vÉÆAzÀgÉ EzÀÝ PÁgÀt ¤.¦.1gÀAvÉ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è " and to clarify the same further evidence is necessary. Admittedly, the parties have completed their evidence in the suit and the matter is posted for defendant's evidence. The 1st defendant was cross examined on 16.12.2015, thereafter the matter is posted for arguments and on completion of the plaintiffs' arguments it is posted for defendants' arguments. The present application is filed seeking for further evidence of defendant No.1 stating that the defendants' intends to clarify the evidence already recorded. The clarification sought by the plaintiffs as indicated above would amount to filling up the omission on the part of the defendants. If such an application is permitted at this stage, it would prejudice 7 the case of the plaintiffs. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that the attempt on the part of the defendants in clarifying the evidence is to set up new evidence for the first time after the arguments of the plaintiffs is not permissible in law. The trial Court has rightly rejected I.A.Nos.7 and 8. The petitioners/ plaintiffs have not made out any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE SN/KA