Writ Petition Nos. 10021-10022/2017(GM-CPC). Case: Shivappa Poojary Vs Krishna Poojary and Ors.. Karnataka High Court
|Case Number:||Writ Petition Nos. 10021-10022/2017(GM-CPC)|
|Party Name:||Shivappa Poojary Vs Krishna Poojary and Ors.|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Sachin B.S., Advocate|
|Judges:||B. Veerappa, J.|
|Issue:||Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XVIII Rule 17; Section 151|
|Judgement Date:||March 14, 2017|
|Court:||Karnataka High Court|
B. Veerappa, J.
The respondent in FDP No. 1/2000 is before this court against the impugned order dated 01.02.2017 passed on IA. No. 12 dismissing the applications under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the case for the purpose of leading evidence of RW1 and for the purpose of marking the documents and IA No. 13 filed under Order 18 Rule-17 read with Section-151 of Civil Procedure Code to recall RW1 for the purpose of marking the documents already produced by the respondent.
Sri. Krishna Poojary, the first respondent in the present writ petition was plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 67/1992 filed for partition and separate possession contending that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants. The suit was decreed in terms of compromise petition. Subsequently, the decree holder filed FDP No. 1/2000 to implement the decree. During the pendency of the final decree proceedings, the present respondent No. 2 filed application under Section-151 of Civil Procedure Code for inclusion of certain properties which were not included in the original suit. Therefore, the FDP Court proceeded to hold an enquiry on the said application. During the pendency of the enquiry on the said application filed by the respondent No. 2, the present petitioner filed an application under Section-151 of Civil Procedure Code to reopen the case for the purpose of leading evidence of RW1 and for the purpose of marking the documents already produced by the respondent, contending that due to the inadvertence the documents produced by the respondent were not marked in the evidence and marking of those documents are necessary and relevant and as such if the documents are marked, no hardship would be caused to the respondent No. 2. The said application was resisted by the respondent No. 2 here in by filing the objections.
The Trial Court considering the applications and objections, by the impugned order dated 01.02.2017 dismissed IA Nos. 12 and 13. Hence these petitions are filed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the both parties to the lis.
Sri. Sachin B.S., learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner is erroneous, contrary to the material on record and the trial Court failed to notice that the first respondent who was the plaintiff could not enjoy the fruits of the compromise decree and the application filed by the...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL