W.P.NO.6156--6158/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2"" DAY OF MARCH 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr." JUSTICE K. BI"IAK'I'I*{AVATS-_!,x':I;A.VV ' T.
WRIT PETITION No.6156--6158/20_'ibm©v1«¢CPC}A ~ .1: = _
BETWEEN:
Sri. Shivarajegowda
Aiias A.Shivaraju
Aged about 39 years
S/0 Chikkannnegowda alias
Annegowda, Kaggundi Village
Ravandoor Hobli
Periyapat11a'i"a1uk =
Mysore District. 5:" . U 2 if-V "f.".PETI'1'IONER
{By Sri. M.Nagesh, Adwj.
AND:
1. Smt. Ningarnumaé; _
Major A ., " '-
4... W/0 C.«g.TIriamIneg'0w(;1_a _
2. Tiifimrfiegowéa,
I\)IajOr,' V T' ''
s/oTLa:e puitegmgyaa
Resporidents land 2 are the
-. .. ~ .. «. _ 'asidents _0f- Shilakunda
Village, Hafiagodu Hobli
' I*I1j;11s_u1*"_'I'a1uk.
T 3' " . Véoddannegowda,
--. _ :5/Iaj'0r
W.P.NO.6156-6158/2010
S /o Appugowda alias
Appaj igowda
4. Sri. Chikkannegowda
Alias Annegowda,
Maj or
S / o Javaregowda
Respondents 3 and 4 are the
Residents of Kaggundi Village
Ravandoor Hobli
Periyapatna Taluk
Mysore District. 1
These Writ Petitions are filed under.._A1ticles 2-262 ‘and*227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quasi} the implugne-:1 order
passed by the learned Additiona3.y_C-ivil f_Jud.ge*[Sr_f”Dvn.] and JMFC,
Hunsur sitting at Periyapatna in /09 dated 27.01.2010
vide Annexure-G and maybe pleased to a.I1ow*t”heVa.ppl’ication on its
file as prayed for. ” . . .. *
These Writ*llfo1*~p.relimina1y hearing, this
day, the Court ;jnade_tl1e._-fo1lowir:g:>~.,.. — I
The petitionerfiplaintivff O’;lS.No.131/2009 on the file of
Civil’VJ:;dge..’:[i§r.;p_lfini) at is before this Court praying for
quashing eAorc;ie:§”-dated 27.01.2010 passed on I.A.Nos.XXVI,
and III file.tfj_irie:’the above said suit at Annexure ‘G’.
é Learned… oounsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioher:/pdiaintilff fled three applications, viz., I.A.No.m{VI under
two
W.P.NO.6l 5843158/2010
Section 151 of CPC to re–open the case and I.A.No.XXVlI under
Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC to recall P.W.l and I.A.No.XVlII..
Order VII Rule 14 of CPC seeking permission to’:.. ~
documents, but the Trial Court rejected all tlf1e..tlf_1ree
3. It is further submitted that if :”the7..A_Apetitioner.His.’
permitted to produce two documentsll._vi}ia._p, notice tissued:..:by~tthe
Land Tribunal to Siddegowda, ;_challan_…forv. the
amount in the bank by stddegbwaei, pet.itiont:rlV:w*ou1d be put to
irreparable loss. The petitioner of the two
documents in this peti.tioner vtfants to reopen the
case and adduc.e**furftherl with reference to the
above said two posted for arguments. At
that stage, these three came to be filed. There is no
mateziial placedll rVecord”-bowpthose two documents sought to be
produced necessary for adjudication of the suit. Learned Trial
fdudge has the documents sought to be produced
not relevant “‘for’tl1e purpose of adjudicating the dispute, as a
ccnse:}l’uence..’_ of “which, question of reopening the case and
if evidence of plaintiff does not arise. The Trial
\/
W.P.NO.6156»6I58/2010
Court has rightiy rejected the appfications, I.A.Nos.XXVI, XXVI}
and XVIII. I see no iiiegakity or infirmity in the impugned 0rd«e1*.t
4. In the result, all the three writ petitions fail grhe’
hereby dismissed.
br1V*