Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 9538

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J
SRI. VELU B. PETHI – Appellant
Versus
M/S. KAYESSESS CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.13418 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR
For the Respondents: SRI. R. VIJAYAKUMAR, SRI. A. MARUTHI PRASAD, SRI. V. SANJAY KRISHNA, SRI SANATH KUMAR A., SRI. B.S. GORUSWAMY

The court emphasizes the importance of allowing additional evidence to ensure a fair trial, asserting that refusal without proper justification can lead to a miscarriage of justice.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - This petition challenges the order dated 19.06.2023 allowing the petitioner under Order 16 Rule 1 & 2 to adduce additional evidence which was partly rejected by the Trial Court. The Trial Court permitted the examination of one additional witness but denied two others, which was contested by the petitioner. (Para 1, 7)

(B) Evidence - The court noted the need for effective cross-examination by the respondents and determined the lack of prejudice in allowing the additional evidence, as the Sub-Registrar and the other witness were necessary for establishing critical facts regarding property disputes. The court emphasized that comprehensive justice necessitates allowing the petitioner to present further evidence vital to the case. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a suit against various respondents for property-related disputes and sought additional evidence for key witnesses to support his claims, which the Trial Court only allowed in part. The necessity of the evidence was contested by respondents, alleging it was irrelevant. (Para 2)

Findings of Court:
The decision of the Trial Court to reject two witnesses was deemed unjustifiable and lacking proper reasoning, warranting intervention by the High Court, leading to the full allowance of the applications to introduce the additional witnesses. (Para 10)

Issues: The primary issue was whether the denial of the additional witnesses’ testimonies by the Trial Court was justified or not. The court analyzed the impact of additional evidence on the ongoing trial. (Para 6)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the additional evidence's probative value must be appreciated properly, and an expeditious trial process must include relevant testimony, highlighting that allowing evidence is crucial for the pursuit of justice. (Paras 7, 9)

Result: The petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and both applications for additional evidence were fully granted.

Table of Content
1. challenge against the trial court's order regarding additional witnesses. (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of the additional witnesses and their relevance. (Para 3 , 4)
3. respondents contest the necessity of the additional evidence. (Para 5 , 6)
4. court highlights need for comprehensive justice and the role of further evidence. (Para 7 , 9)
5. final decision underlining the need for allowing additional evidence. (Para 8 , 10)

ORDER

This petition by the plaintiffs is directed against the impugned order dated 19.06.2023 whereby the application I.A.No.34 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 16 Rule 1 & 2, CPC seeking permission to adduce additional evidence to examine witnesses whose names were not contained in the list of witnesses was partly allowed by the Trial Court by permitting the petitioner-plaintiff to examine one witness No.3 and rejecting the request of the plaintiff to examine witnesses Nos.1 & 2.

2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents-defendants, who are contesting the suit. The plaintiff having examined himself as PW.1 was cross examined by the respondents-defendants and the matter was posted for evidence of defendants. At that stage, petitioner-plaintiff filed the instant application I.A.No.34 for permission to examine 3 witnesses and I.A.No.35 to reopen the case for permission to adduce further evidence. The details of the 3 witnesses sought to be examined by the petitioner-plaintiff are as under:

Details of the Witnesses
Office of the Sub Registrar and Marriage Registration Officer, Rajajinagar (Yeshwanthpur), 1 ^ (st) Floor, 3B Complex, No.199, 13th Cross, 2nd Stage, West of Chord Road, Bangalore - 560086.
Purpose: To produce the Gazette Notification indicating the Guideline Value of the Properties / Sites carved out of Re. Sy.No. 190, old Sy. No. 172 (Sy.No.170) of Kethamaranahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, now lying in West of Chord Road, 2 ^ (nd) Stage, 2nd Phase Layout (near Nandini Talkies), Bangalore, and the surrounding area falling within the said Notification, for the period from 24.3.1990 till date.
Sri Madhusudhan Wadhwani, Aged 58 years, S/o.F.K.Wadhwani, R/at GA, Gayathri Apartments, 22, Palace Cross Road, Bangalore - 560020.
Special Land Acquisition Officer (Bangalore West), Bangalore Development Authority, Land Acquisition Department, Kumara Park West, T.Chowdaiah Road, Bangalore 560020.
Purpose: The witness to produce and depose regarding the documents relating to acquisition of Re. Sy.No. 190, old Sy. No. 172 (Sy. No.170) of Kethamaranahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, such as Preliminary Notification, Final Notification, Award and taking over possession of the properties. The Preliminary Notification bearing No.A/10/3140/1963, dated 2.3.1964 and Final Notification bearing No.LMA 112 MNJ 67, dated 18.11.1967 issued under the provisions of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945, and provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Notice issued for taking Possession of the notified properties to be produced.

Details of the Witnesses

Office of the Sub Registrar and Marriage Registration Officer, Rajajinagar (Yeshwanthpur), 1 ^ (st) Floor, 3B Complex, No.199, 13th Cross, 2nd Stage, West of Chord Road, Bangalore - 560086.

Purpose: To produce the Gazette Notification indicating the Guideline Value of the Properties / Sites carved out of Re. Sy.No. 190, old Sy. No. 172 (Sy.No.170) of Kethamaranahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, now lying in West of Chord Road, 2 ^ (nd) Stage, 2nd Phase Layout (near Nandini Talkies), Bangalore, and the surrounding area falling within the said Notification, for the period from 24.3.1990 till date.

Sri Madhusudhan Wadhwani, Aged 58 years, S/o.F.K.Wadhwani, R/at GA, Gayathri Apartments, 22, Palace Cross Road, Bangalore - 560020.

Special Land Acquisition Officer (Bangalore West), Bangalore Development Authority, Land Acquisition Department, Kumara Park West, T.Chowdaiah Road, Bangalore 560020.

Purpose: The witness to produce and depose regarding the documents relating to acquisition of Re. Sy.No. 190, old Sy. No. 172 (Sy. No.170) of Kethamaranahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, such as Preliminary Notification, Final Notification, Award and taking over possession of the properties. The Preliminary Notification bearing No.A/10/3140/1963, dated 2.3.1964 and Final Notification bearing No.LMA 112 MNJ 67, dated 18.11.1967 issued under the provisions of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945, and provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Notice issued for taking Possession of the notified properties to be produced.

The witness to depose regarding the action initiated by the Bangalore Development Authority with respect to Re. Sy.No. 190, old Sy. No. 172 (Sy.No.170) of Kethamaranahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, for taking possession and demolition of structures put-up on the said property.

The witness to depose regarding the disbursement of compensation and the litigations before various Courts involving Bangalore Development Authority with respect to Re. Sy.No. 190, old Sy. No. 172 (Sy.No.170) of Kethamaranahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.

3. The said application having been opposed by the respondents-defendants, the Trial Court allowed I.A.No.35 in full and partly allowed I.A.No.34 and permitted the petitioner-plaintiff to examine the SLAO - BDA (additional witness No.3). However the reques

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 9538

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAS.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, JSRI. VELU B. PETHI – AppellantVersusM/S. KAYESSESS CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD – RespondentWRIT PETITION NO.13418 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

The court emphasizes the importance of allowing additional evidence to ensure a fair trial, asserting that refusal without proper justification can lead to a miscarriage of justice.

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J
SRI. VELU B. PETHI – Appellant
Versus
M/S. KAYESSESS CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.13418 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)