Dilip S/O Sangshetteppa vs Revanesh & Anr on 28 August, 2019

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Dilip S/O Sangshetteppa vs Revanesh & Anr on 28 August, 2019

Bench: S.Sujatha

                              1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019

                          BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

       WRIT PETITION NO.203811/2019 (GM-CPC)

Between:

Dilip S/o Sangshetteppa Kudte
Age: 49 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Near Gandi Chowk
Lecture Colony Road, Bhalki
Tq. Bhalki, Dist. Bidar
                                              ... Petitioner

(By Sri Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty, Advocate)

And:

1.     Revanesh S/o Sangshetty Veershette
       Age: 39 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Bhalki
       Tq. Bhalki, Dist. Bidar - 585 328

2.     Gunwanthrao S/o Marutirao Shinde
       Age: 59 years, Occ: Agriculture
       R/o Ambesangavi Cross
       Tq. Bhalki, Dist. Bidar - 585 328
                                              ... Respondents

    This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari,
quashing the order dated 16.03.2019 passed by the Civil
Judge at Bhalki, on application U/O XVIII Rule 17 R/w
                                   2

Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.93/2013, vide Annexure-E to
this writ petition.

      This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the Court made the following:-

                            ORDER

This petition is directed against the order passed by the leaned Civil Judge at Bhalki on application (I.A.) filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S. No.93/2013.

2. Respondent No.1 has filed a suit in O.S.No.93/2013 against the petitioner and respondent No.2 for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction in respect of suit land Sy.No.41/A measuring 1 acre 30 guntas of Kotgyalwadi village, Taluk Bhalki, District Bidar. In the said proceedings, I.A. has been filed by the petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, which came to be dismissed. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that defendant No.1 has been suffering from paralysis attack and by virtue of which he was unable to appear before the Court on the relevant date. Hence, the application was filed seeking for reopening the evidence of the defendants and marking the documents, which ought to have been liberally considered by the trial Court.

4. Having regard to the factual aspects of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order impugned cannot be held to be unjustifiable for the reason that the explanation offered by the petitioner for not being present before the Court on the relevant date is due to the ill-health of the defendant No.1 and the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 being engaged before the District Court at Bidar. The said explanation cannot be held to be satisfactory in the absence of adequate evidence made available in support 4 of the ill-health of defendant No.1. It is needless to observe that the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 engaged before the District Court at Bidar would also not come to the aid of defendant No.1 to seek for reopening the evidence on the defendants' side. At this juncture, it is profitable to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gayathri vs. M. Girish, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 142, whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that procrastination of proceedings by filing series of applications by the litigants and the Hon'ble Courts considering the same on sympathetic grounds and granting adjournments at the drop of the hat is not justifiable.

5. No ground is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the order impugned. Writ petition is bereft of merits and accordingly stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE LG

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court