Karnataka High Court
Sri Naharmal vs Sri Sanghvi D Moolchand on 9 October, 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
W.P. No.40804/2012 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
SRI NAHARMAL
S/O SHIVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
PROP: PRAKASH SALES CORPORATION,
CHIKPET CROSS,
SHOP No.77-A D.K.LANE
BANGALORE-560003. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S. RAJU, ADV., )
AND
SRI SANGHVI D. MOOLCHAND
S/O K. DEVICHAND
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT NO.78/3, S.M.S. COMPLEX,
C.T. STREET,
BANGALORE -560 002. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMESH CHANDRA, ADV.,)
THIS WP IS FILED U/A.226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE SMALL CAUSES JUDGE [SCCH-
17] AT BANGALORE DT.4.9.12 & IA.NO.20 ALLOWING THE
2
APPLICATIONS TO RE-OPEN TO LEAD FURTHER CHIEF OF
DW-1 IN SC.NO.1354/11 AS ANN-G TO THIS PETITION.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. In this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the order dated 4.9.2012, passed by the Trial Court in S.C.No.1354/2011 on IAs to recall DW1 and lead further evidence.
3. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected the applications filed by the petitioner to recall DW1 and lead further evidence.
4. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3
5. The respondent has filed suit in S.C.No.1354/2011 for ejection of the petitioner. After hearing the arguments of the respondent and closing the arguments of the petitioner, the case has been posted for judgment. At that stage, the petitioner has filed applications to recall DW1 and lead further evidence. The Trial Court has rejected the applications. Therefore, this writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the petitioner wanted to lead further evidence by producing some documents and therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the applications. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
7. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the 4 respondent himself has produced documents i.e., the rent receipts which reflect the cheques which the petitioner intends to produce and therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. The point that arises for my consideration is, Whether the impugned order calls for interference?
10. It is relevant to note, the suit is for ejection. The parties have lead evidence. The arguments of the respondent have been heard. At that stage, the petitioner has filed applications to recall DW1 the witness and lead further evidence. The Trial Court has rejected the applications on the ground that it is only to protract the proceedings the applications have been filed. The respondent has produced documents i.e., the rent receipts which reflect the cheques which the 5 petitioner intends to produce. From the conduct of the petitioner, it appears, it is only to protract the proceedings these applications have been filed. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. There is no merit in this writ petition and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner wants to address the arguments, he can get the case preponed and address his arguments with due notice to the respondent.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Bss.