Karnataka High Court
Smt.Mallawwa @ Malu W/O Shridhar Poti ... vs Suresh S/O Shridhar Poti And Ors on 9 February, 2017
Author: Rathnakala
Bench: Rathnakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
WRIT PETITION NOS.201459-201460/2016 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
1. SMT.MALLAWWA @ MALU W/O SHRIDHAR POTI
AGE:46 YEARS, OCC:H.H.WORK
2. RAGAVENDRA S/O SHRIDHAR POTI
AGE:22 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
3. SRIDEVI S/O SHRIDHAR POTI
AGE:24 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
ALL PETITIONER ARE
R/O:ATHANI, TQ:ATHANI DIST:ATHANI
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI D. P. AMBEKAR, ADV.)
AND
1. SURESH S/O SHRIDHAR POTI
AGED 42 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O:TORVI
TQ&DIST:VIJAYAPUR-586106
2. MUSTAFA S/O MAHIBOOBSAB MALLI
AGED 42 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O:TORVI
TQ&DIST:VIJAYAPUR-586106
2
3. SADASHIV S/O DEVENDRA MELINAKERI
AGE MAJOR, OCC:H H WORK
R/O:TORVI
TQ&DIST:VIJAYAPUR-586106
4. SUSHILABAI W/O SADASHIV MELINAKERI
AGE MAJOR, OCC:H H WORK
R/O:TORVI
TQ&DIST:VIJAYAPUR-586106
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ASHOK S. KINAGI, ADV.)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI,
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE 'H', VIZ, THE
ORDER DATED 18.01.2016 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, VIJAYAPUR ALLOWING I.A. NO.19 UNDER XVI RULE 1 AND
6 OF CPC, IN O.S. NO.51/2012 AND FURTHER REJECT THE SAID
I.A. NO.19 AS PRAYED FOR AND ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGND
ORDER AT ANNEXURE 'J', VIZ, THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2016
PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYPUR
ALLOWING I.A. NO.20 UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1A OF CPC, IN O.S.
NO.51/2012 AND FURTHER REJECT THE SAID I.A. NO.20 AS
PRAYED FOR AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Heard Sri D.P.Ambekar, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Ashok S. Kinagi, learned counsel for respondents.
2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs IN O.S.No.51/2012 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayapur wherein they sought for the relief of declaration, partition and separate possession. The respondents/defendants contested the suit. On the pleadings having been complet, issues were framed and trial commenced. Petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1 entered the witness box and during the course of her cross- examination, she denied certain suggestions put to her on behalf of the defendants.
3. When the matter was posted for further evidence of the defendants they filed two applications/ I.A.19 under Order XVI Rule 1 and 6 of CPC and another 4 application in I.A.20 under Order VIII Rule 1-A of CPC. By these applications, they sought for issue of summons to the Project Officer, Devadasi Punarvasati Yojana, Belagavi and sought permission to produce additional documents.
4. Learned Court below vide its considered order observes that the documents sought is in respect of the fact disputed by the defendants and the additional documents sought to be produced, if rejected would amount to refusing the evidence.
5. Having gone through the impugned order, I am convinced that the applications are allowed for the valid reasons assigned by the Court below. In that view of the matter, the orders do not call for exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Accordingly, petitions stand rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srt