Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shakuntala W/O Chidanand ... vs Smt. Mahadevi D/O Annagouda Patil, on 18 March, 2011
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
PAY OOF } MARCH, 201
BEFORE
Mr. GUSTICE RAM. MOHAN REDDY .
We. BP. NO. O21 Gh
NAGOW DAI PATIL.
2
SHERI SATISH S/O Mz
AGE: G4 YEARS, OCG
Dy ¥ ar
R/O PURBIRT, OTST
SMT. NEHA W/O JAGADISH PARAKANATTI,
A :
fo YEARS, GEC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELG 3AUM.
SHRI. AYUB 8/O MEEK
3 "OCC: AG
R/O YALIM af NOLL T 5 HU
Dis)y. B RULAG Pua:
AGE: 36 YE
R/O YALIML
TQ. HUKKER! Fase Gau M.
SMT RAMEZAI
AGE: GOYE
R/O HUREERI, ae
TO. HURKERI, DIST. BELGAUM.
PAR
Te
hiv
ARAN
<BADE,
NATTI
ad,
ROUDANAVAR,
iY.
ad
PUK RI,
oe AP PA RALAPPA MUI
5, (OC:
HUKKERI
jen
SIDDAPPA MU
IRKRERI,
27. LAGAMANNA
3B Bo uw _OCc> 7
HURKKIER
'Wu KEKE a. Di
45 YEARS, COC:
1 'KI RERI, DIST. BE
Natal
CRE
SHEPME
. KURBAR,
S HIEPPCSRD,
La BG 5 GARE :
SINESS,
T. BELGAUM.
fas.
B SHERBADE,
LSS,
(LOAUM,
_ SATTEPPA GAJAISAR,
> BUSINESS,
SPOTS ALIM
Ss] . BELGAUM.
SPONTDE
4
_
STITUTION
Kk DATED 23.02.2011
THESE WPs.
THIS DAY, THE COU
by the 1% respondent tor
fi
_ properties arraigning the petitioners as defendants No. 4 and
-S while respondents No.2 to |
the. é@yidence..o, mer side. Wherealterwards, the suit was
» recording evidence of {he defencants. It appears,
Ws.l and ® and the evicence
'e examined as 1D.
No. S under Order 4 Rule | fa) rfw. Section lol ap CLP. ta
produce documents mentioned im the list; L.A. No. Your
L?Y r/w. section 131 of CPC to recall. D.W.2.fdn. >
Qrder 18 Rule
No. 1G to
further evidence; LA.
vehall of petitioners and L.A. No. ilvunder Order lo Rule |.
r/w, section 151 of C.PLC. to iss
Povitnesses, [rm the
accompanvilg :
; rae ebearescd my ay oe gn py G he a yee peep gid "Ely a m1 aed ey cepa real
if was stated that the penliarers TeSisted Tae Sul OF Several
erounds, one of which was that, some of the suit schedule
&
and tnat the
documents being "+ bocopies Gf the instruments by
which the properties were conveyed to the ancestors of the
*
pelifioners.were anph a Nui?
29.11.2010 and 2BS.1L2OPO, which were found toa be translation ancl cue to oversight "obefore Court. in addition, if was stated Chanabasappa Suidappa executed. @ Will which was » PCLILIGMNErs Merein are tne i ees i acid £O SPATECL anc mot intentional.
3. These applications were oppused hy filing sb af oblections, inter alia denying the claims putforth ov ihe petitioners and stating ample opportunities inthe trial. lay cee ~ + ryt Te gs qean Dyce eek documents at the relevan evidence, The explanation offered, dtivas. stated,.was rout salishictory.
" ne & oe isfactory, and accord MEIOTIS, earned course! for the parties, the order be satisfactory so as to allow I.As. ied on the cay ;
there has been an intentional lay petitioners in mot producing idered opinion, en reasons 8S LO examined, and in the "relevanty vthe petitioners are permitted fo file a fresh "apnlic witnesses to be examined in the suit, and if such an appucation is filed, the Trial Court is directed to conside:
to the relevancy of the witnesses to speak to facts asserted by the petitioners and to pass orders thereon after.extending:. an opportunity of filing objections of the plaintiff. Petitioners are directed to conclude the further-examination of D.W.2 on 19.03.2011. If the parties co-operate inthe disposal of the suit, it is néedless.to state that the Trial-Court would render judgment within:six'months froin today. °