THE SARVADESHIK ARYA PRATINIDHI SABHA vs. VIJAYKUMAR S/O PUSHALAL LAHOTI AND ANR

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH ON THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION Nos.202034 OF 2017 & 202172 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: THE SARVADESHIK ARYA PRATINIDHI SABHA (SAPS), NO.3/5, DAYANAND BHAVAN RAMLILA MAIDAN, NEW DELHI-2 REPRESENTED BY ITS S.P.A. HOLDER DR. RADHAKRISHNA VARMA S/O SHRI RAMCHANDRA VARMA AGE: 64 YEARS OCC: PRESIDENT OF KARNATAKA SAPS., R/O NO.802, 35TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 11 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI VENKATESH C. MALLABADI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VIJAYKUMAR S/O PUSHALAL LAHOTI AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O AZAMABAD OIL REFINERY SECUNDRABAD – 500001 2. JAIPRAKASH S/O PUSHALAL LAHOTI

2 AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O AZAMABAD OIL REFINERY SECUNDRABAD - 500001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.D. HANGARKI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THESE WRIT PETITIONS AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2017 PASSED ON I.A.NO.14 UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE TO RECALL THE DW-1 FOR FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION AND THE ORDER DATED 10.04.2017 PASSED ON I.A.NO.15 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER HEREIN UNDER ORDER XI RULE 14 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KALABURAGI, THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF WHICH ARE AT ANNEXURES-E & F RESPECTIVELY. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The petitioner filed I.A.No.14 seeking to recall DW.1 for further cross-examination. The same was

3 rejected. The trial court while rejecting the application was of the view that substantial lenience has been shown to the petitioner. That even though leniency was shown and the DW.1 was recalled, yet again the second application was filed that too at the stage of arguments. 2. On considering the reasons, I am of the view that there is no merit in these petitions. 3. So far as I.A.No.14 is concerned, substantial lenience has been shown to the petitioner. On the previous occasion, DW.1 was recalled at its behest. Even for the second time, the same application is filed. The petitioner cannot be permitted to file successive applications seeking the same relief again and again. Therefore, the trial court was justified in rejecting I.A.No.14. Hence, I find no good ground to interfere with the order dated 28.03.2017. 4. I.A.No.15 was filed under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure to direct the defendant to produce the notice issued by the Income Tax Department to

4 Pasharam Lahoti. The Trial Court rejected the said application. It was of the view that even though the court has power to order for production of the document, there is no reason as to why the said document is relevant to the dispute in question. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the reply to the notice is essential since it is admitted that there is a Will. 6. However, I’am of the view that even if the said reply is directed to be produced, the same would not establish the validity of the Will. The validity of the Will has to be established in the manner known to law. Just because the defendant replied to the notice issued by the Income Tax Department that the Will exists, that does not mean that Will has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, rejection of the application was justified. Hence, I find no good ground to interfere with the well considered order passed on I.A.No.15.

5 For the aforesaid reasons, the petitions being devoid of merit are dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE NB* CT: RRJ