IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13134 DAY OF OCTOBER 2009
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE ASHOK T.
WRIT PETITION NO.9562/A2009 (.r:;1vi;ci1écj'~V.: " 2
Between
Ragavenclra Hemmanna, » _
S/0 Darnodhar Hemmanna; ..
Aged 36 years, T» *
Residing at Sidc1apura__Vi11agey,.... '
And Post, Kundapura A
Uclupi District. " ._.. Petitioner
{by He 2 ». ,---
1 . 'V Vasudev'a..AchaTy
V' i_AgedA.44 years';
V *2T._ T. f,Achary.
"Aged 34 years
Achary
" Aged 42 years.
A Bhaska.raAcha1'y.
Aged 36 years.
" :5. Rathanakara Achary
Aged 32 years.
Ail are the children of
Manjayya Achary.
6. Narasimha Naik
S/0 Marala Naik,
Aged about 59 years.
All are residing at
Badabalu, Siddapura Village,
And Post, Kundapura Taluk, V p ,« _ ._ V A
Udupi District. .3 .;...ReSpOT1Cl":'n*tSg
[by Sri.S.R.Hegde Hudlamane,-Adv for_F{}--5
R6--SerVed}
This~W:jit7l?etitio.n._p_is--..filcd'under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution" of 'Iridia"'pray»ing to set aside the order
dated.2.1.8';'2QO8--1;;pass_ed__byl"i:h.em_I3istrict Judge at Udupi, on
IA.No.IV filed; _und:er Order XLI Rule 27 r/w Section 151 of
CPC,':._ in' .RA.l'~I.o§2§/V2006' ' as per Annexure--A and
consequently a1loix_rfihe--~ab»ove said application.
5 ' ~ Thisl.l\?\frit'l3et:itilVc~n coming on for Preliminary Hearing in
Grouppvpthis day,__.the Court made the following:
' ' ORDER
'1.'he.:'j;>etit1oner has raised the challenge to the order,
dated1.8.2008 (Annexure--A] passed by the Court of the
{5i'sifn'ct Judge, Udupi, on 1A.No.lV filed by the petitioner
Alginvloking Order XL! Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
21908. for the_ production of additional evidence in
RA.No.26/2006.
fiifilé.
- 3 -
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner
filed the suit against the respondents seeking the relief of
declaration and pennanent injunction. The said y.suit._Vwas
dismissed on 9.8.2006. Aggrieved by
petitioner has presented RA.No.26/ 2006 before’ “of.
the District Judge, Udupi. In the sa..idA proeeeddings,
he sought to produce niriekdocurnwentis invokirigi Order
Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Proeedure, “:*<3Qt8."' The Appellate
Court by its order, dated rejected thevpetitioner's
IA.No'.VIV.iV t11_is'order,.this petition is presented.
* After" the ' matter for some time, Sri
V.S.Hegdc_, btheVxiearned.':_"f3ounsel for the petitioner and Sri
S..15£:yPuIegde ldudlama.ne. the learned Counsel for the
» fairly submit that IA.No.IV ought to have been
' ~.cflonisidVere;d__ along with the main matter.
ends of justice would be met by my setting
AA aside the impugned order and by directing the said Appellate
'Court to consider IA.No.IV afresh along with the main matter
Q33.
-4-
in RA.N0.26/2006. Needless to observe that the said
Appellate Court shall reconsider IA.I\§o.N withou”t—-.»being
influenced by the reasons shown for rejeetirig
impugned order.
5. The petition is allowed in No”orC1ert3.s”to”eosts:” .
AIU9GE;
