GURUGUNDABRAMHESWARA SWAMY DEITY Vs. GIRISHKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 1 of 1996 being aggrieved by order dated 18 -9 -2015, Annexure -H, rejecting their Interlocutory Application Nos. 24, 25 and 26 filed for production of documents, recall of P.W. 1 and reopening of case, are before this Court assailing the said order.

(2.) Petitioners have filed the suit in question under Sec. 92 read with Order 7, Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for framing a scheme for proper administration of Institution of Sri Gurugunda Bramheswara Swamy Diety situated at Pattanayakanahalli Village, Sira Taluk and also for management of finances of institution according to pious and charitable intention of donors; for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from in any manner interfering with plaintiffs or other devotees from entering or performing pooja (worshipping) of Sri Gurugunda Brahmeshwara Diety situated therein.

(3.) On service of suit summons defendants have appeared, filed their written statement, contested the suit. On the basis of pleadings of parties Trial Court has framed issues on 24 -3 -2004 and in order to prove the issues both parties to suit have already tendered their evidence. When the matter was set down for final arguments, applications in question have been filed by plaintiffs. Said applications namely Annexures F, F1 and F2 came to be resisted to by defendants by filing objections as per Annexures -G1 and G2 respectively. Trial Court after considering the objections filed by defendants to said applications and after hearing rival contentions of learned Advocates appearing for parties, Trial Court by impugned order has dismissed the applications for reasons more than one namely; applications are filed belatedly; reasons given by the plaintiffs that they did not consult their Advocate on time and give instructions, is not acceptable; reason assigned itself would indicate that plaintiffs have not been diligent in prosecuting the case; there are no pleadings and issues on the alleged facts that plaintiffs proposed to place on record by way of evidence that would assist the Court to arrive at a conclusion and as such, on these grounds Trial Court has rejected the applications.