K. RAMA PRASADH Vs. PARAMESHWARA NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has raised the challenge to the order dated 23 -7 -2009 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puttur, Dakshina Kannada on I.A. Nos. 8 and 9 in O.S. No. 66 of 2006.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the respondent filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration that he has acquired the right of pathway in plaint B schedule property and for permanent prohibitory injunction, etc. On the closure of respondent's side of evidence the matter was posted for the defendant's (petitioner's) evidence. At that stage, the respondent's side filed LA. No. 8 for reopening his case and I.A. No. 9 for summoning his son, Krishna Naik for giving evidence. The Trial Court allowed both the I.As. by its order dated 23 -7 -2009. Feeling aggrieved by the same, these petitions are presented.

(3.) THE learned Counsel has raised objection to the affidavit filed in support of LA. No. 9 not being filed by the respondent himself, it is filed by his, son who is not a party to the suit. Even this affidavit does not contain any reason as to why Krishna Naik has to be summoned to give the evidence.