IBRAHIM Vs. KRISHNA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiffs feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge passed on an application filed under Order 16 Rule 6 of CPC. The said application is rejected by the Court below which is under challenge.

(2.) The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and for consequential relief of injunction to declare the sale deed executed between deceased Abdul Jabbar Khan and defendant No.1 and subsequent transactions as sham documents and not binding on plaintiffs. The petitioners/plaintiffs in support of their contention have let in ocular and documentary evidence. The respondents/defendants who claim that they have acquired right based on title documents have let in rebuttal evidence in the form of ocular and documentary evidence. When the matter was set down for arguments, the present petitioners/plaintiffs have come up with these two applications seeking witness summons summoning one Smt. Khathoon Bi to produce the original Will dtd. 15/1/1964 and second application to secure the thumb impression register from Bommanahalli Sub-Registrar office. The learned Judge has rejected the application. While rejecting the application, the learned Judge has found that the recourse adopted by the plaintiffs to secure these documents is at a stage when the matter was posted for arguments. Therefore, learned Judge has recorded a specific finding that the petitioners/plaintiffs intend to protract the hearing of the suit. In the course of the order, learned Judge has observed that several adjournments are taken by the petitioners/plaintiffs. It has also taken note of the fact that applications were filed seeking leave of the Court to reopen and permit the plaintiffs to lead further evidence. On these set of reasonings, the learned Judge has proceeded to reject the applications which is under challenge.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs and learned counsel for the respondents/defendants.