IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 1a.Ai3iGA~i;o.Ri.= _]' DATED THIS THE 15*" DAY as s1E4bfrE'M,a'E.R'.--:Zoio;'..._. '.' BEZQRE T. V 1 ._ THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEEQ. VVi'ENi'J'(3*C.')VVP_ii3i':LA':VGOWDA WRIT PETIfiON Aixibix WRIT PETITION'Tao.2'V8'1277/ggs?.(§M--cPC) V BETWEEN: Sri S.Narayan-a'_»S"w'a-my/}~--.'fi'.':. " .- S/o. ia_te_Sanj'e-e«x.'.appa} _ " " Aged.'Vabou't..S55 yeé;rs,_ _ Residing -fat Doddvag'atti'gTa'nat:be road, Near Nandashree £_<I~a_lya_n'a.M-antap, V.V.Exte'r1siCn, FioS'aAk0té*»T0wn, Bangaiore"'i?.,u'ra!V£s.ist'r_ict'"¥ 562 114. § " ~.. PETITIONER Siiih:'i<.i/'arjadarajan, Adv.) ..........._....... S r"i«.. H. 3 raj , S/o. ..iat:._=. Munishettappa, ---- .Major.'V--Residing at Gangarpet, Hosakote Town, Hosa kote, Bangalore Rural District ---~ 562 114. RESPONDENT
(By Sri S.K.Acharya, for M/5. Dharmashree Associates,
Advs.)
These writ petitions are fiied under Articles’,2Zi.6-,,a’n,d
227 of the Constitution of India praying to;””‘qu.’ash:5t_he.
impugned order dated 6.8.2010 passed on’,
I.A.No.4, filed by the respondent seeking-.proVdu.c’tior: Of, ”
documents and to lead ad’ditiona7{ _evid4en’ce.f, “in
R.A.No.1S3/2006, on the file of I1=_Addition&3l D,ist.ri’ct”Jud.ge,,
Bangalore Rural District, Ba’nga–l.ore, ‘«pVrodu.ced”«._.v”at_
Annexure — A.
These petitions coming1″‘on”ifor prel~im’i*nairy.’1vhearing in
‘B’ group, this day the Court made’ the folioiiiing
Respondéent instituted’: suit-.a’gainst:’»vthe petitioner for
the relief,ofivp’eilEm–ane’.fit.«_1’injunction. ,’W$After trial, the suit
cameévlltoy Afigrieved, the plaintiff has
preferred first’aVpp§:-all the Court below. I.As.3 and 4
weije filed” production of 22 documents as
Aadd{itio’nai”–eyidence.”Though objections were filed to I.As.3
and below has allowed the applications, by
ohuservingih-that, respondent is at liberty to cross~examine
the “witnesses and also lead rebuttal evidence if the
‘”~”_defendant/respondent opts to do so. Reserving such
__?liberty, imposing cost of Rs.500/~, both the applications
have been allowed. Respondent/defendant has filed these
writ petitions questioning the said common order.
\»
/”ca
2. Heard the learned counsel on both sidesand
perused the record of the writ petitions.
3. The impugned order firstiy,-s,uffers”Vo’n:.–‘Ia4rfcou_nt ‘ofuu
the procedural impropriety. The
have examined the appeVa!_L'””i~n_% the first°i,ns’i:a’nc~e’with’-it
reference to R.24 under 0.51.1–R.C:,’i?.C:-…,A.Th.ere~a.fte,r,§ if it has
any need of any document or any witness
to be examinvedito the judgment or
for any __VinmV’exercise of power
conferred (1) of R.27 under 0.41,
it coulchhave ” the parties to produce such
dociumentys or”exami.ne such witness. Since it is not the
‘,.case -.o’f«t>h_e”~respondent/appellant that, the Trial Court
.”refused’uto«: the evidence, which he has sought to
produce, appeal, I.As.3 and 4 could not have been
2 AAa’lio_weVd unless the mandatory requirements under Cl.(aa)
sub-rule (1) of R27 under 0.41 was complied with.
4, The application filed seeking production of
additional evidence should be simultaneously heard with
K
/’
* a
the hearing of the appeal and not prior to the hearing of
the appeal, as has been done in the instant case. _4v”§Th’is4w_eEl
settled principle of law has not been kept inNie»v9=i,j’j5frnii-.!_e’,
passing the impugned order.
In the result, writ petitior{s._ stand avi_l_oAwed.”
impugned order being irration’aclTand Elvlegall,”i.st;3n«d.Jddashed. it
I.As.3 and 4 shall be”~re~–corns”id-er4ed”r~by the'”Co’crrt below
keeping in view the obse.rvativoh:s accordance with