Karnataka High Court
T Chamaraj @ Chamarasa S/O T.Haladayya ... vs Tirumala S/O H.Yeriswamy on 25 June, 2018
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
ON THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.202068 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
T. CHAMARAJ @ CHAMARASA
S/O T. HALADAYYA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
R/O SINDHANUR, DISTRICT: RAICHUR
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI I.R. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
TIRUMALA S/O H. YERISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
R/O UMALIHOSUR VILLAGE
TALUK MANVI
DISTRICT: RAICHUR - 585 401
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI AND TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2017
PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AT MANVI ON
2
I.A.NO.17 IN O.S.NO.70 OF 2010 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E,
ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner filed a suit for declaration, mandatory injunction, possession and consequential reliefs. An application was filed in I.A.No.17 under Order 18 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the order dated 19.09.2015 and recall PW.1 for marking the documents. By the impugned order, the same was rejected. Hence, the present petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial Court committed an error in dismissing the application. That the application ought to have been allowed.
3. The same is disputed by the respondent.
4. The trial Court while rejecting the application came to the view that the documents sought to be marked 3 are not certified copy of the layout map, the document does not bear the date of preparation of document are certified copy issued by the competent authority.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding recorded by the trial Court is incorrect. That the certified copy of all the documents are sought to be marked.
6. On hearing learned counsels, I'am of the considered view that appropriate relief is called for. I have considered the affidavit in support of the application. Therein it is narrated that at the time of instituting the suit, the certified copy of the layout map and other documents were not filed due to inadvertence. Therefore, now the certified copy of the layout plan and other documents are intended to be filed.
7. However, it would appear that the trial Court has lost sight of this issue. Admittedly the certified copies were not filed at the time of institution of the suit. Through the present application he seeks to file them. Therefore, 4 prima facie it would appear that the finding recorded by the trial Court on the application is erroneous. Therefore, I deem it just and necessary to direct the trial court to reconsider the said application. If it is found that certified copies are being filed by the petitioner then the trial Court to consider the same in accordance with law.
8. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dated 04.03.2017 in O.S.No.70 of 2010 on I.A.No.17 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) at Manvi vide Annexure-E is set aside. The trial Court is directed to reconsider the application in I.A.No.17 filed by the petitioner in accordance with law based on the aforesaid observations.
The parties to appear before the trial Court on 16.07.2018. The trial Court to pass orders if necessary on the same day itself.
Sd/-
JUDGE sdu CT-RRJ