SHAIK MAULA ALI Vs. P ANUSUYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, defendant in O.S.No.250/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, is before this Court challenging the orders dtd. 6/10/2023 and 9/10/2023 posting the suit for arguments without providing an opportunity to the petitioner-defendant to lead his evidence.

(2.) Heard Sri. Shravan Madhav.K.P., learned counsel for Smt. Irfana Nazeer, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. H.T.Nataraj, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff. Perused the writ petition papers.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the suit was at the stage of petitioner-defendant's evidence on 7/10/2023, the petitioner-defendant filed I.A.No.13 under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC'). The said application was posted to 9/10/2023 for filing objection by respondent-plaintiff. On 9/10/2023 itself, the Court considered I.A.No.13 and dismissed I.A.No.13 filed by the petitioner-defendant and defendant's evidence is taken as nill and suit was posted for arguments. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner-defendant is aggrieved by portion of the order, where defendant's evidence is taken as nill and case is posted for arguments. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court ought to have provided an opportunity to the petitioner-defendant to lead his evidence, since the matter was at the stage of defendant's evidence when I.A.No.13 was filed. It is submitted that on passing order on I.A.No.13 suit ought to have been posted at the same stage when I.A.No.13 was filed.