VIJAYALAKSHMI RAMANNA Vs. CHETANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner- defendant No.1(a) has filed this writ petition challenging the order dtd. 3/8/2022 passed in O.S.No.26944/2011 on the file of LXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, by which, applications filed by the defendant No.1(a) for reopening the case to recall the defendants' side evidence and permitting her to lead further evidence, were rejected.

(2.) The suit in O.S.No.26944/2011 was filed for specific performance of an agreement/Memorandum of understanding (MOU) dtd. 26/11/1979 in respect of schedule 'B' property. This agreement/Memorandum was allegedly executed by deceased defendant No.1-Venkatappa who is stated to have expired on 20/4/1980. The suit was therefore filed against legal representatives of said Venkatappa. The defendant No.1(a) filed a written statement admitting the execution of the agreement/Memorandum of understanding dtd. 26/11/1979 and that the plaintiff is in possession of the 'B' schedule property but denied that the plaintiff was entitled for the reliefs. Based on these contentions, the suit was set down for trial. At the stage of arguments in the suit, defendant No.1(a) filed applications to recall stage of the suit and to re-open the defendants' evidence and permit her to lead further evidence. The said application was opposed by the defendant No.1(g) and (j). The trial Court after considering the objections raised, rejected the said applications in terms of the order which is impugned in this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the defendant No.1(a) submitted that defendant No.1(a) was aged and therefore, she could not lead her evidence. He further contended that defendant No.1(a) apart from accepting the execution of the agreement/Memorandum of understanding dtd. 26/11/1979 had claimed that the suit was barred by law of limitation and therefore, it was necessary that her evidence is recorded.