Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1796 (KAR)

Feroze Pasha v. Muyeed Pasha

2025-12-11

PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

body2025
ORDER : PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. This petition is filed by the plaintiffs being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.12.2025 passed by XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.1514/2013. 3. Learned counsel for plaintiffs has filed a suit against the defendants seeking the following reliefs: "(a) of specific performance, directing the defendants 1 to 4 to execute and register the absolute sale deed in respect of the suit schedule B property in favour of the plaintiffs on or before 31.08.2018/any date as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) from the plaintiffs and formally put the plaintiffs who are already in peaceful possession of the suit schedule 8 property, as purchasers/owners in possession thereof, (b) upon failure of the defendants to do so, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to execute and register the absolute sale deed in respect of the suit schedule B property in favour of the plaintiffs on 31.08.2018 or any other date as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and formally put the plaintiffs who are already in possession of the suit schedule B property as purchasers/owners in possession thereof, by permitting the plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in this Hon'ble Court: (c) to award costs and grant such other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and expedient in the circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity" 4. Learned counsel for petitioners-plaintiffs filed four applications viz., under Section 151 of CPC to recall the order dated 06.01.2017 and reopen the stage of the case of Examination-in-Chief of PW.1; under Section 151 of CPC to permit PW.1 to lead evidence as Examination-in-Chief; under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC to permit PW.1 for production of documents and under Order XVI Rule 1-A of CPC to permit the plaintiffs to adduce evidence of defendant No.2(b). 5. The aforementioned applications though orally objected, the written objections are not filed. 5. The aforementioned applications though orally objected, the written objections are not filed. Learned trial Judge noting that the original suit is of the year 2013 and there is a specific direction given by the Hon'ble Apex Court to dispose the matter on or before 08.01.2026, dismissed all the aforementioned applications and in view of DW.1 being fully cross-examined by learned counsel for plaintiffs, posted the matter for arguments. This order of the learned trial Judge is questioned by the plaintiffs. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioners-plaintiffs that the impugned order is perverse, illegal and contrary to the materials placed on record. No doubt, the Hon'ble Apex Court has given a specific direction to the trial Court to dispose of the matter on or before 08.01.2026. The plaintiffs were unable to produce certain documents which are crucial for deciding the matter. In view of the fact that the witnesses to the sale agreement dated 10.12.1990, namely, Shamim Begum died on 01.05.2021 and Abdul Rahman, who was defendant No.2 died on 05.01.2024. Therefore, it would be very crucial and necessary for the plaintiffs to adduce evidence of other witnesses to establish and prove the sale agreement. Under the circumstances, he contends that he shall abide by the time line specified by the Hon'ble Apex Court and that he cannot be denied an opportunity to lead further evidence of witness to establish his case before the Court. He contends that he would cooperate for the expeditious disposal of the suit in accordance to the directions issued by Hon'ble Apex Court. He would also submit that he would abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this Court for leading evidence of his witness and other witnesses on the applications made hereinabove and marking of documents, which shall be adhered as per the direction of this Court without further protracting or prolonging the proceedings. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents- defendants vehemently contends that the trial Judge has rightly dismissed the applications and the same is sustainable for the reason that the suit is of the year 2013 and PW.1 has adduced evidence 09 years back and now, they are trying to fill up the lacuna and to take away the admission so made by the witnesses in the Court, including that of evidence and elicitation in the cross- examination, which is not permissible. Therefore, he seeks dismissal of the petition. 8. At the same time, learned counsel fairly submits that he would not have any objection for production of documents and marking of the same subject to proof of the same in the course of arguments and delivery of the judgment. However, he further contends that this Court may impose strict timeline to complete the evidence and for the judgment to be passed by the trial Court in compliance to the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 9. The fact remains that the suit is of the year 2013 and the evidence of the parties have been concluded and the matter is posted for arguments. At that stage, these applications are filed by the plaintiffs to recall PW.1, to lead further evidence and adduced evidence of a witness and produce certain documents. However, it is seen that in view of the death of two witnesses to the sale agreement dated 10.02.1990, namely, Shameem Begum, who was died on 01.05.2021 and Abdul Rahman, who was died on 05.01.2024. There may be crucial witnesses to be examined further i.e. the person now the petitioners- plaintiffs are seeking to examine as an additional witness. Therefore, an opportunity requires to be given to the plaintiffs to adduce evidence of the witness and produce the documents and marking of the same subject to objection if any raised by the respondents-defendants. However, the petitioners-plaintiffs would have to be put to terms and strict timeline for completion of evidence of witness and production of documents. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that an opportunity to be given to the plaintiffs to lead their further evidence and mark documents subject to the timeline specified by this Court hereinabove. 10. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) This writ petition is allowed; ii) The impugned order dated 06.12.2025 passed on four applications namely, the applications filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC seeking production of three documents, Section 151 of CPC praying to recall the order dated 06.01.2017 and reopen the case for further chief examination of PW.1, Section 151 of CPC to permit PW.1 to lead evidence and also Order XVI Rule 1-A of CPC to lead evidence of the plaintiffs' witnesses in O.S.No.1514/2013 by XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is hereby set aside. Consequently, the applications filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs are allowed; iii) The petitioners-plaintiffs are permitted to lead further evidence by recalling the witness so stated in the applications, so also, they are permitted to produce the documents which are sought to be produced along with the applications; iv) The petitioners-plaintiffs shall examine their witness and the additional witnesses, if any , on or before 15.12.2025 and thereafter, the respondents-defendants shall be provided an opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses, so also, it is needless to mention that the respondents-defendants would be permitted to object to the documents that are sought to be produced by the petitioners-plaintiffs; v) It is also open to the respondents-defendants as well as learned trial Judge to object to any of the statements that are to be now adduced by the petitioners-plaintiffs' witnesses in the examination-in-chief and if they already exist in the evidence, the same shall not be repeated, thereby creating protraction of the proceedings; vi) It is made clear that the petitioners-plaintiffs will not be permitted to fill up any lacuna by leading any evidence and the respondents-defendants are at liberty to object to the same so also the Court shall prevent and object to such evidence being adduced by the petitioners-plaintiffs and also if any admissions are made, the same shall not be taken away by subsequent evidence adduced by the petitioners-plaintiffs; vii) The respondents-defendants are at liberty to cross-examine the petitioners-plaintiffs' witness either on the same day or the following day i.e. on 16.12.2025. Ordered accordingly. In view of disposal of the writ petition, all pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and the same pales into insignificance.