Karnataka High Court
Smt Archana Gupta vs Sri Rajesh Reddy on 21 August, 2018
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
WRIT PETITION Nos.35627-630/2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. Smt.Archana Gupta,
Aged about 37 years
W/o Sunil Gupta,
R/at, No.S-711,
Manipal Centre,
Dickenson Road,
Bengaluru-560042.
2. Sri.Sunil Gupta,
Aged about 51 years,
Father name not known
R/at No.S-711,
Manipal Centre,
Dickenson road,
Bengaluru-560042. ...Petitioners
(By Sri. B.Vachan., Advocate)
AND
1. Sri.Rajesh Reddy
Aged about 48 years,
S/o Janardhana,
R/at No.29/7,
Doddanakundal Village,
-2-
K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bengaluru-560036.
2. Guramma,
Aged about 95 years,
D/o D.R.Krishnareddy.
3. Dasharath Reddy
Aged about 80 years,
S/o D.R.Krishnareddy.
4. Govardhanreddy,
Aged about 74 years,
S/o D.R.Krishnareddy.
5. Keshavareddy,
Aged about 72 years,
S/o D.R.Krishnareddy.
6. Gurnatha Reddy,
Aged about 70 years,
S/o D.R.Krishnareddy.
7. Balaverdhana reddy,
Aged about 65 years,
S/o D.R.Krishnareddy.
8. Padmanath Reddy
Aged about 47 years,
S/o Dasharathareddy.
9. Nandakumar
Aged about 42 years,
S/o Narayanareddy.
10. Tilak Reddy,
Aged about 50 years,
S/o Narayanareddy.
-3-
11. Raghuramareddy,
Aged about 40 years,
S/o Goverdhanareddy.
12. Lakshman Reddy,
Aged about 39 years,
S/o Goverdhandareddy.
13. Muralikumar
Aged about 38 years,
S/o Keshavareddy
14. Madhusudan
Aged about 36 years,
S/o Keshavareddy
15. Harishreddy,
Aged about 35 years,
S/o Gurunathareddy
16. Ravi,
Aged about 35 years
S/o Balaverdahanareddy
17. Arun,
Aged about 33 years,
S/o Balaverdahanareddy
18. Savithramma,
Aged about 67 years,
W/o Late Narayanareddy.
All are residing at No.100/3, Domlur,
Bengaluru-560071.
Janaradhanareddy,
Aged about 76 years,
S/o D.R.Krishnareddy,
R/at No.25/11,
-4-
6th Cross, LIC colony,
3rd Block, East Jayanagar,
Bengaluru-560041.
Dead by his LRs
19. Jayalakshmi
W/o Late Janardhanareddy
Residing at No.25/11,
6th Cross, LIC colony,
3rd Block East,
Jayanagar, Benglauru-560041.
20. Ramesh Srinivasa Jenu
Aged about 59 years
S/o Srinivasa Jenu,
R/at No.3,
Raj Bhavan Road,
Bengaluru-560001.
21. Smt.K.Janaki
Aged about 66 years
W/o Krishnareddy,
R/at No.21 and 22,
Krishnareddy Colony,
Domlur layout,
Benglauru-71.
22. Smt.K.Kalyani
W/o Ramalingareddy,
Aged about 64 years,
R/at No.144,
LRDE layout, Karhtik Nagar,
West Ring Road,
Near Marathahalli,
Bengaluru-56037.
23. Smt.K.Gayathri,
W/o Venkateshareddy,
Aged about 62 years.
R/at No.102/A,
-5-
Rushive Nilaya,
13th Main, 2nd Cross,
1st Stage, 1st Phase, Gokul,
Mathikere, Bengaluru-54.
24. Smt.H.Neethu
W/o G.L.Rajashekarareddy.
Aged about 43 years,
R/at No.12, 2nd cross,
6th Block, 1st Main, Opp. IBP Petrol Bunk,
80 feet Road, Koramangala,
Bengaluru-560095.
25. M/s Rajesh exports ltd.,
Office at No.4, Batavia Chambers
Kuamara Krupa Road,
Kumara Park East,
Bengaluru-560001.
Represented by its authorized signatory
Kaizer A Raja. ... Respondents
(By Sri. Raghavendra S.V., Adv
for Sri. Zulfikir Kumar Shafi, Adv for R1)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 227 of
constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated
10.08.2018 passed on I.A.Nos. 1 /18, 2/18, 3/18 and
4/18 by the XXXIV Additional City Civil Judge, at
Bengaluru in OS.No.2005/2007 vide Annexure-H and
etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for further orders
this day, the Court made the following:-
-6-
ORDER
The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions assailing order dated 10.08.2018 passed on I.A Nos.1/18 to 4/18 in OS.No.2005/2007 on the file XXXIV Additional City Civil Judge at Bengaluru.
2. The first respondent is plaintiff and petitioners and other respondents are defendants in a suit for partition and declaration. Respondent No.20 is General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of defendant Nos.1 to 17, defendant No.25 is the purchaser. Defendant Nos.20 and 25 have filed their written statement. They have also cross-examined PW.1. Thereafter, the matter stood posted for defendants' evidence. As the defendants failed to adduce evidence, the Court took evidence of defendants as nil and posted the matter for arguments. At that stage, defendant No. 20 filed I.A.Nos.3 and 4/2018 under Section 151 of CPC, to recall the order dated 17.07.2018 and to permit to lead evidence. Defendant No.25 filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2/18 under Section -7- 151 of CPC to re-open the case and to permit defendant No.25 to lead evidence. The said applications are rejected by order dated 10.08.2018 which is impugned in the present petitions.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - Plaintiff and perused the writ papers.
4. Counsel for petitioners submits that the defendant No. 20 holds General Power of Attorney (GPA) for defendant Nos.1 to 17 and defendant No.25 is the purchaser in the suit. Defendant Nos.20 and 25 have filed their written statement and they have also cross- examined PW.1. Even though, the trial Court had provided sufficient opportunity to lead defendants' evidence, the defendants could not lead evidence for the reason, that the assignment deed was in the locker of mother of defendant No.25. The mother of defendant No.25 died during pendency of suit and the said locker could not be opened in time. He further submits that -8- even today the defendants are trying to get the said assignment deed, which is in the locker. They have filed applications to recall the order dated 17.07.2018 and seeking permission to lead defendants' evidence.
5. The trial Court has rightly rejected the application noting that the date, on which the matter was posted for defendants' side evidence and how the defendants have failed to lead evidence. Further, the trial Court has held that the oldest matters have to be disposed of, at the earliest. No doubt, the trial Court rightly rejected the applications. But the defendants have not led their evidence in a suit for partition and declaration, wherein the interest of purchasers are also involved. It is just and proper to provide an opportunity to the defendants to lead their evidence. Further, no party to the proceedings should go out of the Court with an impression that he has not been provided proper opportunity to defend his case. Hence, the order dated 10.08.2018 is set aside and defendants 20 and 25 are directed to lead their evidence on 29.08.2018 and -9- 30.08.2018 without seeking any further adjournment.
Defendants 20 and 25 shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- each to the plaintiff on 29.08.2018. On 29.08.2018 and 30.08.2018 the defendants 20 and 25 shall complete their side evidence.
With the above observation writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE NG* CT:SN