Sri Suresh vs Sri Kariyappa on 8 December, 2008

ROER DATED 21/O8/2006 ex' THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL.' 
JUDGE{JR.DN) RANEBENNUR in 0.3. No. 104/00 AND  
FURTHER Peoceeemes IN PURSUANCE THEREo£jyfieVE«ANNe~V
GAND ETC. .1  "  "

THIS WRi'i' PETITION comma. on ma PREuM1.zsegRY'e;€A.R1§:G --« , 

IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FeLLow.I_1~;Q  
oeeee: I ';";= »_*,, H e

The petitioner has 'wfiefiition V'

the order passed by.   LA. Nos.5,

6aI1d7.

2.    "jmrformance of the

" . ' In fact, earlier an

exparte'  .  Seas passed. In

appea'1,._t.heV  extier was set aside and the matter

  .,.;A2:1 §'    to the tr1al' Court. The defendant

   Issues were framed. The

pléintifis fiave adduced evidence and the case was

   pe$flted"fer defendants' evidence. The defendant sought
' .edjei1rI1ment Adjournment was ganted on payment of

'  east. Neither cost was paid nor defendant entered into

the witness box. Uttineately on 29/05/2006, the

defendant's side was closed and case was posted for



arguments. At that stage these applications  '

I.A.No.V for recalling the order dated  

I.A.No.VI for permission to examine " 2

LA. No.VII for production of additionai. i:_:A .

3. It is the  of   fast
petitioner is    he was not
ganted lwve on __29/  he was mt.
present    is"  defendant in
the    oefendants. No cause was
showvx},  did not appear in the

Court arid  evidence. Therefore the trial

  iémissed I.A.No.V for  The

   cannot be found fauit with.

H has dismissed LA. No.VI which is also

 Iegai  .'§7:a}iC3. But the fact remains, suit is one for

'V V' * performance of agreement of sale. The

'  defeodant is denying the very ageement. In order to

  that the judgment is delivmed on merits, I deem it

proper to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to
adduce evidence pmvided he adduees evidence within



the time stipulated and cooperate with the eom1:_ in

disposal of the case subject to payment of 

compensate the inconvenience caused to the   

4. Insofar as LA. VNo.V II__ 'eo1"i'tv::=:=..A1*11ee*1,'" 

intends to produce the sale "in Vet'
which is far away fimtn .}:he L.  shew
valuation in a suit for   There is no
necessity to    of the

property. 111'  order rejecting

1.

A.No.\(I1

_ followixg order.

V is allowed in pan. The order

‘i\’os.V and V1 is hereby set aside. The
. _erder dated 29/05/2006 closing the defe:1da.nt’s side is
aside. The defendant is permitted to adduce

V on the next hearing date subject to payment of
eeee Rs.3,0oo/–(Rupms Three thousand only) as cost. The

defendant shall be permitted to enter witness box only

on payment of cost of Rs.3,000/~. When once he sitcps

into the witness box, trial shall go on day to V.

suit shall be cencluded within thirty dayé:L’ ”

commencement of the recordi1?:”g’AA”(>f « Lldcj

evidence as stipulated V’

Dr. MAHALINGAM Vs SMT k

reported in ILR 2003 fl
Judge