SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39977

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MR. IVAN MARK SEQUEIRA – Appellant
Versus
EDWARD PETER TAURO – Respondent
WP 31019/2025



HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 26931 OF 2025 C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 31019 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

IN WP NO. 26931/2025 BETWEEN:

MR.NITHIN GERALD SEQUEIRA S/O MR IVAN MARK SEQUEIRA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT 25-14-840/6 VICTORIA NEAR VALENCIA MANGALURU 575 002 REP. BY GPA HOLDER MR NITHIN KUMAR S/O BHASKAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT 1-300-A GUDDE HOUSE MOODUSHEDDE, VAMANJOOR MANGALURU 575 028 … PETITIONER Digitally signed by (BY SMT.MEDINI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MUKUND PRASAD, GAVRIBIDANUR ADVOCATE)

SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH AND:

Location: HIGH COURT OF 1. MR.EDWARD PETER TAURO KARNATAKA S/O LATE PETER TAURO AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT SEQUERIA COMPOUND VALENCIA MANGALURU 575 002

2. IVAN MARK SEQUEIRA S/O LATE MR. VICTOR SEQUEIRA HC-KAR AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT "VICTORIA", SEQUIERIA COMPOUND VALENCIA MANGALURU 575 002

3. SELMA SEQUEIRA W/O IVAN MARK SEQUIERIA AGED AABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT SEQYUERUA COMPOUND VALENCIA MANGALURU 575 002 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ANANDA RAMA K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.07.2025 (ANNEXURE A), PASSED ON IA NO. IV AND V IN O.S. NO.1086 OF 2023 PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND MFC, MANGALURU.

IN WP NO. 31019/2025 BETWEEN:

1. MR. IVAN MARK SEQUEIRA S/O LATE VICTOR SEQUEIRA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

2. MRS SELMA SEQUEIRA W/O IVAN MARK SEQUEIRA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT 'SEQUERIA COMPOUND', VALENCIA MANGALURU - 575 002 PETITIONER NO.2 IS REP. BY GPA HOLDER IVAN MARK SEQUEIRA I.E., PETITIONER NO.1.

S/O LATE VICTOR SEQUEIRA ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.RAJASHEKAR., ADVOCATE)

HC-KAR AND:

1. EDWARD PETER TAURO S/O LATE PETER TAURO AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT SEQUERIA COMPOUND VALENCIA, MANGALURU-575 002 2. NITHIN GERALD SEQUEIRA S/O IVAN MARK SEQUEIRA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT SEQUERIA COMPOUND VALENCIA, MANGALURU-575 002 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ANANDA RAMA K.,ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.VI AND VII IN O.S. NO.1086/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANGALURU. D.K VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

THESE PETITIONS, ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for petitioner in WP No.26931/2025 Smt. Medini Rao and learned counsel Sri. S. Rajashekar for petitioners in WP No.31019/2025 and learned counsel Sri.Ananda Rama K., for respondents.

HC-KAR

2. The petitioners in these two cases are none other defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively.

3. A suit in O.S.No.1086/2023 came to be filed by the respondent No.1. - Plaintiff before the Trial Court for ejectment. The matter was listed for recording of cross examination of P.W.1 on 13.09.2024, on which day, the defendants sought time to cross-examine P.W.1. The matter was posted thereafter and the applications came to be filed by the defendant No.1 under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., and same came to be rejected by the Trial Court on 21.09.2024. Subsequently, defendant No.1 filed an application for adjournment to cross-examine P.W.1 which was also rejected and the matter was posted to 30.09.2024. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., which came to be allowed and further examined witness and got marked two documents and the matter was re-listed for cross-examination once again and the same came to be rejected by the trial Court and cross examination of P.W.1 is taken as NIL on behalf of defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 in subsequent dates. Thereafter, the defendant’s evidence was adduced and time was sought and HC-KAR the s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top