Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 658 (KAR)

Gangabyraiah And Others v. Honnadasegowda

2020-03-06

S.G.PANDIT

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Petitioners in O.S.No.19/2015 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM at Tumkur are before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 13.02.2020 by which, the applications filed for amendment of written statement, recall and reopen and for production of documents are rejected. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/ defendants and learned counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs. Perused the writ petition papers. 3. The suit is one for cancellation of compromise decree dated 19.01.2014 in O.S.No.284/2014 filed for declaration of plaintiffs title and possession and consequential relief of permanent injunction. When the matter was at the stage of arguments, the petitioners/defendants filed 5 applications, one under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the written statement to properly indicate the Genealogical tree; application under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the case for further chief of DW.1; application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC to recall D.W.1 for further examination; and two applications under Order VIII Rule 1(A) of CPC for production of documents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants would submit that the genealogy stated in the written statement at paragraph 12 is not correct and to correct the genealogy, the defendants sought to amend the written statement. To mark certain documents, the petitioners/defendants filed two applications to reopen the stage of the suit and to further examine D.W.1. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegation of the respondent/plaintiff that the decree in O.S.No.284/2014 is obtained by fraud is denied. In that regard, PCR was filed and in that PCR, B report was filed. To place on record the said B report and certified copy of the PCR, the petitioners intend to reopen and recall D.W.1. In another application filed under Order VIII Rule 1(A) of CPC, the petitioners intend to produce documents, such as, correct genealogy, index of lands and RTC extracts pertaining to the plaintiffs branch. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that filing correct genealogy and marking of those documents are very much necessary for proper adjudication of the issue involved in the suit. Thus, prays for allowing the applications. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff would submit that the trial Court rightly rejected the applications. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that filing correct genealogy and marking of those documents are very much necessary for proper adjudication of the issue involved in the suit. Thus, prays for allowing the applications. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff would submit that the trial Court rightly rejected the applications. It is his submission that the parties have adduced evidence with regard to relationship between them. Further, he submits that genealogy now stated to be correct genealogy is not stated as to how the said genealogy is prepared and on what basis. Further, he submits that as the suit is at the stage of arguments, the applications are filed only to drag on the proceedings. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the trial Court is justified in rejecting the I.A. filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and I.A. filed under Order VIII Rule 1(A) of CPC to produce documents, such as genealogical tree, index of lands and RTC extracts. However the trial Court is not justified in rejecting the applications filed under Section 151 of CPC to reopen; the application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC to recall D.W.1 and production of documents, such as, PCR and copy of B report. 7. The trial Court, under the impugned order rightly observed that P.W.4 who is one of the family members of the defendants has already given evidence with regard to relationship between the parties. In that circumstances, again amending the written statement to provide correct genealogy tree would not arise. It is for the Court to decide correct relationship of the parties based on the material evidence on record. Thus, I find no reason to interfere with the said order. Further, the trial Court is justified in rejecting the application seeking to produce the documents such as, genealogy tree, index of lands and RTC extracts. Those documents would not be relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in the suit. 8. As stated above, the suit is one for declaration to declare that the decree obtained in O.S.No.284/2014 is by fraud. In that regard, it is stated that the respondents/ plaintiffs had filed PCR and in that B report was filed. Those documents would not be relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in the suit. 8. As stated above, the suit is one for declaration to declare that the decree obtained in O.S.No.284/2014 is by fraud. In that regard, it is stated that the respondents/ plaintiffs had filed PCR and in that B report was filed. The defendants intend to place on record the certified copy of the PCR as well as B report, which would be necessary in relation to the relief sought. As such, I.A. filed under Order VIII Rule 1(A) of CPC to produce the certified copy of the PCR and copy of B report is allowed. Consequently, I.A. filed under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the case is allowed. I.A filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC is allowed and D.W.1 is recalled to mark the said two documents, on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part.