K.M. BADRINATH Vs. NAGENDRA KAMAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions arising from two different orders from the same civil suit in O.S.No.1171/2011 filed by the petitioner are taken up together for final disposal as requested by both the sides since both they lie in a narrow campus in terms of law and facts and they have some contiguity of subject matter.

(2.) In these writ petitions, petitioner being the plaintiff has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for invalidating the order dated 18.11.2016, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A whereby his application in I.A.No.17 filed under Order XIIX Rule 3 CPC, and another application in I.A.No.18 filed under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC seeking restoration of the issues earlier framed are dismissed with a cost of Rs.2000/-. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner is two fold. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their counsel resist the writ petitions.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner taking the Court to the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 3 of CPC submits that petitioner's application in I.A.No.18 ought to have been allowed and the petitioner ought to have been permitted to lead the rebuttal evidence since there were plural issues framed by the Court in respect of some of which the burden was cast on the petitioner and in respect of others the burden was cast on the respondents. He banks upon the decision dated 24.03.2014 in W.P.No.26497/2012(GM-CPC) between Dr. Rajesh .vs. U.J. Mahabala rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.