What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found that the trial court should have granted some time for the defendant to obtain the documents instead of closing the evidence. The impugned order was deemed unsustainable.

The defendant in a 1998 suit sought to adduce further evidence, claiming documents were with the Income Tax Department. The trial court allowed the plaintiff's application to close the defendant's evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the trial court erred in closing the defendant's further evidence without granting sufficient time to obtain crucial documents.

P Rangadhamappa vs P V Seshadri | Karnataka High Court 2013

Before: AND

WP No.30458/2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVATSALA WRIT PETITION NO.30458/2013 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN P Rangadhamappa, S/o late Mallappa, Age: 69 years, Residing at No.10/10-Y/2, 16th Main, 3rd Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010. Petitioner (By Sri Siddappa B M, Adv.) AND P V Seshadri, W/o V K Venkateshaiah, Age: 71 years, Residing at No.189, First Floor, 3rd Cross, 1st Main, III Phase, West of Chord Road, Manjunathanagar, Bangalore-560 010. Respondent (By Sri H N Nanjundaiah, Adv.)

WP No.30458/2013 2 This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 27.6.2013 passed on I.A-IX in O S No.137/1998 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge at Nelamangala, at Annexure-E. This Petition coming on for preliminary hearing 'B' Group this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Petitioner, who is defendant in O S No.137/1998 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), at Nelamangala, is before this Court, praying for quashing the order dated 27.6.2013 passed on I.A- IX in the above-said Suit, at Annexure-E. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that at the stage of further evidence of the defendant, the respondent filed I.A-IX under Section 151 of CPC to close further evidence of the defendant and post the matter for arguments and the trial Court erred in allowing the application and posting the matter for arguments. He submits that for the purpose of further adducing evidence, the petitioner required certain documents and they are in the custody of Income Tax Department and they seized the documents when they conducted raid of the house of

WP No.30458/2013 3 the petitioner. He submits that if 15 days time is granted, the petitioner will complete further evidence.

Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the Suit for bare injunction was filed in the year 1998 and the petitioner herein is protracting the proceedings and thereby harassing the respondent. Therefore, the respondent filed an application under Section 151 of CPC for closing further evidence of the defendant and posting the matter for arguments, and accordingly the trial Court, on perusing order sheet, has rightly allowed the application and closed further evidence of the defendant and posted the matter for arguments. He further submits that respondent has filed written arguments and the matter is set down for judgment on 3.8.2013 and there is no merit in the Writ Petition. 4. Admittedly, the Suit was filed in the year 1998. The materials placed on record indicate that the petitioner herein is trying to get certain documents, which are alleged to be in the

WP No.30458/2013 4 custody of the Income Tax Department. Under such circumstances, the trial Court could have granted some time instead of allowing the application and closing further evidence of the defendant. In my view, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

In the result, Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.6.2013 passed on I.A-IX in O S No.137/1998 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), at Nelamangala, at Annexure-E,is quashed. Consequently, I.A-IX filed by the respondent/plaintiff is rejected. Petitioner is granted time till the end of 31st of August 2013 to complete his side of evidence. In the event of not completing his evidence, the trial Court shall proceed with the Suit and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, on or before 30th of September 2013. Sd/- Judge

Bjs

P RANGADHAMAPPA vs. P V SESHADRI

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments