IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE. W.P.NOs.35-37/2013 (GM-RES)

Transcription

1 1 BETWEEN IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 9 TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE W.P.NOs.35-37/2013 (GM-RES) SMT P A VENKATALAKSHMI W/O RAJENDRA H RAO AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT KENKERE VILLAGE MAGADI TALUK ALSO AT SMT P A VENKATALAKSHMI W/O RAJENDRA H RAO AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT SY NO.7/2, SUGGANAHALLI VILLAGE MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT PETITIONER (BY SRI M T NANAIAH SR. COUNSEL & PRABHUGOUD B TUMBIGI, ADV.,) AND 1. SRI S N RAMACHANDRA SHASTHRI S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH S AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O HARANI, OPPOSITE TO CHINAMAYA MISSION 1ST MAIN ROAD, SIDDAGANGA EXTENSION TUMKUR

2 2 2. SRI S SHAMANNA S/O LATE S NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT SUGGANAHALLI 3. SRI HUCHACHANUMAIAH S/O APPAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT SUGGANAHALI 4. SRI B PARAMESWAR POLICE CONSTABLE KENGERI POLICE STATION AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT SUGGANAHALLI 5. SMT KUSUMA D/O SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT SUGGANAHALLI 6. SRI RAVEENDRANATH S/O H THIPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT SUGGANAHALLI 7. SMT PADMAVATHI, W/O T RAVEENDRANATH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT SUGGANAHALLI,

3 3 8. KUM. MANASA D/O T RAVEENDRANATH AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS MINOR REP BY HER FATHER T RAVEENDRANATH RESIDING AT SUGGANAHALLI... RESPONDENTS THESE W.Ps. ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MAGADI IN OS.NO.109/01 ON INTERIM APPLICATIONS NOS.9 TO 11 FILED BY THE R1, U/S.151 & U/O- XVIII RULE-17 & U/O-XVI RULE-1 & 2 OF CPC., RESPECTIVELY, PRODUCED VIDE ANN-A TO THE WP ETC,. THESE W.Ps. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: PC: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These writ petitions impugn the order dated passed by the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC., Magadi, on the interim application nos.9 to 11 in O.S. No.109/2001. By this order, the respondent-plaintiff s prayer for seeking permission to examine some more

4 4 witnesses has been allowed. The Court below in paragraph 8 of the order, while allowing the applications made the following observations: No doubt the said application is filed at the fag end of this case. The same cannot be a reason to curtail the plaintiff s right to prove his case. The defendant has raised an objection that, the proposed witnesses are not the witnesses of this EX.P-1. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that, the witness no. 2 is very much alive and the other witnesses are dead, therefore in order to identify the signature of those witnesses, he is intending to examine the sons of those witnesses who are not alive. Though these applications are filed at a belated stage, an opportunity should be given to the plaintiff to prove his case. The delay in filing these applications has to be condoned by imposing suitable cost. On the other hand, the defendant will have an equal opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. The ratios laid down in the above quoted decisions are taken note of. Since the plaintiff is claiming his right

5 5 on the strength of a Palu Patti. It is to be observed that in the earlier occasion, plaintiff has not made any attempt to examine the attestors of the said Palu Patti. Therefore an opportunity should be given to him. As such in the interest of justice, the above applications require to be allowed. Therefore the above point no.1 is answered in the AFFIRMATIVE. From bare perusal of the observations made by the learned Judge, it is clear that in the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, the learned Judge exercised inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By this order, in my opinion, substantial justice has been done without causing any prejudice to the petitioner. Petitioner will have a right to cross-examine the witnesses. Keeping that right intact these writ petitions are disposed of. 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for direction to the Court below to dispose of the suit expeditiously. Having considered overall facts and

6 6 circumstances of the case and that the suit is pending since 2001 the trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from today. Petitioners to produce copy of this order before the Court below within a period of two weeks from today. SAK Sd/- JUDGE