IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
OATEO THIS THE 25"' DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010
8EFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VJENUGOFALA'*flG'QWDA,V
WRIT PETITION NOS.3O944~3C394}*/2{§1{§C»(_GM:i4CPCf)~--..'."*ii_i
BETWEEN:
1 SMT. SHARADAMMA A ---- _
W/O LATE G R BASA\':'.ARA_3AIAH" I
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS... ' 1 V'
2 SR}: 8 RAVISHANKAR _ v_ A'
5/0 LATE.G«R';BASAvA;2.A3AIAHv _
AGED AE.Ou',€=4a¢ YVE}'.\R$.. '
3 SR1 Bj'S_uR'E'S:H I _ ._
S/O"LATE;G RiIEASA.vARAIAIA+-:v"
AGED AEO.OT_42_»'EAAs__. _ --
A SR": RENuK,A PéAVK'ASI%'
S/O LA_TE _G R _BASAvA.RA3AIAH
AGED A'BQU'!"_T;7 YEARS.
'~AL_I_ ARE R/AT' 41 1,
II 'F.LO0"R., 12TH MAIN
' _6'T.|'-I 'BL'QVCEI=u§N*IIIG"'TO~
DIRECT & SET ASIDE THE ORDER DAirEo"2i4.8.iiI.O,"~PASSED Bi/.j
THE xxv ADDL. CITY CIVIL JuDGE,'v..aANGALO.RE"[CCH=¢2'3l]
ALLOWING I.A.NO.3 IN O.S.NO'.'1G996/O6".[ANNE}<VURE'~AJHFELED . *
BY THE RESPONDENT & CONSEQUEi\}TLY DISMHISS _i=.A[I\tO.3.
THESE PETITIONS COMING FOR’ “PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP–..1_TpHIS–‘_DAY,’ ‘<r:HE"«CouR"I' MADE THE
FOLLOWING: = 2 –
Respor:’d’e.nt}Zpl’;aintiff_:hascinstituted suit agaénst the
petitioners/dVefenC§–a:n.ts-.j”f7o’r “relief of mandatory
injunctEon,’- ‘de|Vi§?’efry;:’Of”po’S-session of Suit premises and
Consecgueotiali Vreliefsg = Petitioners have filed the written
stateffnen~t and’av–..Co_un’ter Claim. Issues have been framed.
Duringthe-.Co~urse of the trial of the suit, i.e., after the
“pia’E.ntiff”dVe’_p.osed” as PW.1, an application was fiied under
A A to reserve right of leading rebuttal evidence
tnrespect of Issue Nos. 3 to 5. The application was
– Opposed by the defendants. Upon Consideration, the Trial
“Court has allowed I./-\.3 and has permitted the plaintiff to
/
fl’
‘ . V as un’r:etje,ssVa ry. EL//”‘
lead rebuttal evidence, as prayed in I.A.3. Questioning the
said order, these writ petitions are flied by the defen~d:anl_ts..
2. Sri Nagendra Naidu, learned counsei
the petitioners submits that, if thewrespondent.Ais’«.leadind”:
evidence after the adduction
defendants, the petitioners not io,bV3e.cti:on’3:”for the
impugned order.
3. Sri Rarneshchaindra,j:~le.a.rned”.«coura.se’i’ appearing for
the piaintiff _t:hat€,._ has deposed on
issues aifidwafter the defendants
piaced with regard to their own case
in the M-iittenv’ the counter claim, the
plaintiff would adduvce further evidence.
..4.–v.,_’In:’«view of the said submission, learned counsel
appe’ari’ngf petitioners seeks disposal of the matter
I Q
The submissions made by the teamed counsei are
pieced on record and the writ petitions stand disposed”io’f_’f”*._
accordingiy. No costs.
Ksj/–