Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 86448 (KAR)

SRI S NANJUNDAIAH v. SRI HANUMANTHAIAH

WP/33169/2025 · 2025-11-07

Pradeep Singh Yerur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45405 WP No. 33169 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 33169 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI S NANJUNDAIAH S/O. LATE. SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT.VEERASAGARA EXTENSION MELEKOTE MAIN ROAD TUMAKURU TOWN TUMAKURU - 572 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH V B.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI HANUMANTHAIAH S/O. LATE BAGURAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 2. SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O.LATE KODAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 3. RANGASWAMAIAH S/O. LATE KODAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 4. ASHOK KUMAR, S/O. LATE KODAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 5. SHIVAKUMAR S/O. LATE KODAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45405 WP No. 33169 of 2025 6. SIDDALINGAIAH S/O. LATE KODAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ALL ARTE\\R/O. HEBATHANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK 572 107 7. UMA W/O. LATE BAGURAIAH R/AT. ADALAPURA, HALNURU POST KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 107 8. A.B. RAKESH S/O. LATE BAGURAIAH R/AT. ADALAPURA, HALNURU POST KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 107 9. A.B. RAMYA D/O. LATE BAGURAIAH R-7 TO R-9 ARE R/AT. ADALAPURA HALNURU POST KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 107 10. RAMAIAH S/O. RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS 11. LAKKAMMA W/O. BAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 12. GANGAIAH S/O. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 13. LAKSHMMA S/O. RAMAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45405 WP No. 33169 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R-10 TO R-13 ARE R/AT HABATHANA HALLI KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 107 14. G.S. MUKTHAMBA W/O. LATE S.M. SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT. DOOR NO.31, KIRAN INDUSTRIES B.M. ROAD, BESIDE MARUTHI MILITARY HOTEL, GUBBI TOWN-572 216 15. G.S. KIRAN KUMAR S/O. LATE S.M. SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R-14 & & 15 ARE R/AT NO.31 KIRAN INDUSTRIES, B.M. ROAD BESIDE MARUTHI MILITARY HOTEL GUBBI TOWN-572 216 16. S. NAGABHUSHANA S/O. LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT. MELEKOTE MAIN ROAD VEERASAGARA EXTENSIONS TUMAKURU CITY - 572 107 …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UDNER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2025, PASSED ON IA NO.67 TO 69 FILED BY THE PETITIONER (DEFENDANT NO.6), FILED TO REOPEN THE CASE, FOR PERMISSION TO FILE LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND TO RECALL DEFENDANT NO.6 TO ADDUCE FURTHER EVIDENCE, FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC, UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1(A) OF CPC AND UNDER ORDER XVIII RULE 17 OF CPC, IN O.S. NO.51/2007, PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT GUBBI, VIDE ANNEXURE- M. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45405 WP No. 33169 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner. 2. This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondents as no adverse order is passed against the respondents. 3. The present petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant No.6 praying to set aside the order dated 25.9.2025 passed on I.A. Nos.67 to 69 in O.S. No.51/2007 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Gubbi, whereby the trial Court rejected I.A. No.67 filed under Section 151 of CPC to re-open the case; I.A. No.68 filed under Order VII Rule 11A of CPC to produce the additional document; and I.A. No.69 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC to recall the case of petitioner/defendant No.6 to adduce further evidence. 4. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45405 WP No. 33169 of 2025 5. Learned counsel for petitioner reiterating the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the applications contends that pursuant to the private complaint lodged by the respondents/plaintiffs, the Police registered criminal case against petitioner/defendant No.6 and others in Crime No.97/2018. Questioning the said proceedings, petitioner/ defendant No.6 and others filed Criminal Petition No.4419/2018 before this Court. This Court by an order dated 17th July 2025 quashed the proceedings in Crime No.97/2018. The petitioner intends to produce certified copy of the order passed by this Court in Crl.P. No.4419/2018 before the trial Court and mark it in evidence to counter the arguments of the plaintiff and to show that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner is quashed by this Court. Therefore, petitioner filed I.A. Nos.67 to 69. 6. By the impugned order, the trial Court rejected I.A. Nos.67 to 69 on the ground that it may not be necessary at this stage to recall and re-open the case and permit the petitioner/defendant No.6 to adduce evidence only for the purpose of producing the order passed by this Court in Crl.P. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45405 WP No. 33169 of 2025 No.4419/2018 (Annexure-F), whereby this Court quashed the proceedings in Crime No.97/2018 registered against the petitioner. The trial Court observed at paragraph-12 of the order as under: "12. xxx xxx As the order sought to be produced can be placed before this Court at the time of arguments and does not necessitate recall of DW.2, the application deserve to be rejected." 7. I have perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court. I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to set aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court. However, it is needless to mention that certified copy of the order passed by this Court in Crl.P No.4419/2018 is a Court record, which need not necessarily be marked and produced and may be produced alongwith a memo. 8. In the circumstances, without observing anything in the order of the trial Court to be negative, as the same is neither perverse or illegal, this Court further add that the trial Court shall accept certified of the order passed by this Court in Crl.P. No.4419/2018, in the event petitioner files the same - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45405 WP No. 33169 of 2025 alongwith a memo. Further, the trial Court shall consider the same at the time of passing the judgment. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25