WP 38154?/2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1 1'-FH DAY OF' FEBRUARY, 2909
BEFORE % 1'
THE HGNBLE MR.JUS'l'ICE B.S.PATI;,;""*- f A'
BHIWEEN:
SR1 KRISHNAPPA,
s/o KAMBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 5:-: YEARS,
NO.'?'48, AGRAHARA LAYOUT,
YELAHANKA HOBLI, H
BANGALORE NORTH DISTRICT. ._ _ ~ ..Pm"rzoNER
(BY SR1 SAC]-flN.B.S.VFOR K.'1yi71VATP;i§z§.;I, A-av.;%i%%%
AND:
SMT. LAI;I'I'HA,_ " [
w/o SAMPANGI V
(REAL NAME IS JAY .
wfo BALAKRIJSHNA) _ .
AGED A800'? 61 YEARS,
Rssznrgam 9:1' N0.2?,_V
" "€:Qv.r;€.R£«a.4;1?;:~:-21 QUAR'f'E--E%S,
aozszgezr-s<3'a;:,A;1:~3_1 curzzon HOSPITAL,
'SI~i'£~VAJ.I NAcm':,A '
BA§a0ALoRE.. ..RESPONDEN'I'
PE"'i'I'l'ION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 65 227 OF'
'Ti-IE CiC)jNiéS'I'I'I'U'I'iON OF INDIA PRAYENG TO QUASH THE
_ "1M~9t..v.':.NE13" common CREE-ZR mt :~31.01..2oe9 PASSED BY THE
" 'LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.E%N.} BANGALGRE RURAL
»DI8_"E'RI{3'I', BA:sIGaLORE ON I.As.XX, XXI AND XXII IN
_..""{3.8'gNO.19/2001 VIBE ANX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE
T -saw A¥'PLI<3A'I'IONS {As XX, XXI AND XXII IN O.S.NO.19/2601.
THIS FETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
u ' THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
wnrr pmmox nos.3s15-1712009 ' A
WP 3815-17/2009
2
ORIJER
1.
In this Writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order on
IA nos.’20, 21 8:. 22 passed by the court below.
2. IA no.2O was filed under Order XVIII Rule?
Section 151 cpc seeking permission; »to..jiead.’ évirienca-kt’
IA 120.21 was filed under Secfion
dated 20.01.2009. IA no-.’22 to 1′
documents.
3. Peiitiener herein defengi§3:ei* the court below.
After the Ie;-f–evi<.:ience téixdnrhen the suit was posted
for arguxnenie, applications were filed. In
support of apgelientienef the defendant filed his aflfidavit
on 15.01.2069 the case was set down
V.'-forlevicleneee on that date, the defendant marked certain
doetnnents' of his case and ied evidence. However,
'since the 11 'ad .1 4' obtained some other documents from various
1' txaufhezitieett and as it was necessary to produce and mark them
fer effective adjudication of the proceedings, he had
1 " the application seeking the reliefs mentioned therein. He
14 V further stated that if the applications wem not allowed and he
4%,
we 3815-1719009
3
was not permitted to lead evidence by recalling the earlier order
passed posting the matter for arguments, it will :esu1t’.in_ great
hardship and injustice. These applications were
plaintifi’.
4. The txial Court rejected the agfjpficationzs en. t
a
an earlier occasion, after the examinai:io1i–
zn-chiefe in the of
aifidavit was submitted on 1e[1a.J2eo6,a__ ‘-.;1é’£eiidant got’
himself examined as DW11 toil)-13 and
also examined another behalf. Later on,
the case was posted for the defendant
filed ail evn “exice by producing additional
documents. ” was allowed and the
defendant ievidence and pmduced and marked
Exs.?3§’«:1S __T’to_ D-V the matter was again posted for
V.’-_Va1*gi11nents}’~t}:)Iai11tifl’s Counsel filed Written arguments. At
tliatih i’–7tt1eA’oi=.Vdefendant came forward with the present
‘vapplications it by seeking permission to produce additionai
it V’ In such circumstances, the court below has
itself to hold that in the absence ef the defendant
T @a/king out a case and satisfying the court as to how the
WP 3815-17/2009
documents sought to be produced were relevant, the prayer
sought for could not be granted.
5. I have heard the leaxned Connse} for the
perused the materials on record.
5. The amdavit filed in suppqrt ..
make out any suflicient to ‘V
pmduce additional documerxfzs dfnfiherv’ evidence
in the matter by recalling the case for
arguments. The eyifience year 2006 and
the defendant to adduce his
evidence and __ below has once permitted the
defendant by xe–ope1:u’ng the case.
The defendant ean1_1et”be.’V’pe;mitted to have the luxury of re-
and vadduce his evidence at his choice from
tirunento 2 “F§:1:t3VV’.1;itigation has to attain finality as early as
‘ V ‘ ‘ wssibie,
,. A. 3351 the..,}:neumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ
the same is thezefore dismissed.
Sd/~
Iudg