APPEGOWDA Vs. KEMPEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the plaintiff in OS No. 155/2003 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.9.2014 rejecting I.A.8 filed under Section 151 of CPC requesting to reopen the case for production of list of witnesses, I.A. No. 9 filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC requesting to recall PW1 and I.A. No. 10 filed under Order 16 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC requesting to condone the delay in production of list of witnesses and permit to examine them, the petitioner has filed these writ petitions.

(2.) PLAINTIFF filed the suit seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and other reliefs. The defendant filed written statement. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed necessary issues. The case was posted for evidence of plaintiff on 18.6.2009. In spite of giving opportunity to the plaintiff to examine himself as PW1, he failed to examine on 18.6.2009, 15.9.2009, 11.3.2010, 23.4.2010, 30.10.2010 and 21.11.2010. In view of that, a cost of Rs. 50/ - was imposed on 20.11.2010. On 15.12.2010, again a cost of Rs. 100/ - was imposed. Thereafter, on 19.1.2011 a cost of Rs. 150/ - was imposed. It was further adjourned to 1.4.2011, 2.6.2011 and 14.7.2011 and imposed cost of Rs. 100/ - on 2.1.2012 and finally on 12.1.2012. Plaintiff filed an affidavit in lieu of his examination -in -chief and the case was posted for cross -examination of PW1 on 13.12.2012. On 17.1.2013, he filed a list of documents and he further examined and got marked as Exs. P1 to P16. On 17.8.2013, the case was posted for cross -examination of PW1. After conclusion of defendant's evidence on 7.3.2014, the case was posted for argument on 27.3.2014, 24.4.2014 and 7.6.2014. When the matter came up for argument, plaintiff filed I.A.8 under Section 151 of CPC requesting to reopen the case for production of list of witnesses, I.A. No. 9 filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC requesting to recall PW1 and I.A. No. 10 filed under Order 16 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC requesting to condone the delay in production of list of witnesses and permit to examine the witnesses.

(3.) SRI K.N. Srinivas, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law. The Trial Court ought to have given opportunity to the plaintiff to examine his two witnesses in support of his case. Though the sufficient opportunities were given to the defendant in allowing I.A. Nos. 6 and 7 filed for reopening the case, similar opportunity ought to be extended to the plaintiff. Learned Advocate sought for setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court by allowing the writ petitions.