IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2007

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.BHAKTHAVATSALA

WRIT PETITION No.18366/2007 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN

---

1 KIMARI ANJALI DEVI @ ANJALI D/O LATE SIDDAPPA A/A 22 YEARS R/A NAVILAHAL VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT REP. BY PA HOLDER SRI. S. HANUMANTHAPPA

ABMOITITES...

(BY SRI REUBEN JACOB, ADV.)

AND :

---

• 1 SMT JAYAMMA W/O JAKKENAHALLY PARVATHAPPA MAJOR C/O M.L.KUMAR D.NO.10, SATYAMARGA SIDDARTHA BADAVANE MYSORE
• 2 K H LOKESH RAO S/O LATE HARIYAPPA MAJOR, BUSINESS R/O M.C.C. 'A' BLOCK DAVANAGERE
• 3 M G NARAYANASWAMY S/O GANGAPPA MAJOR, BUSINESS DOOR NO. 2581/2, M.C.C. 'B' BLOCK 5TH MAIN, DAVANAGERE CITY

4 N B NAGARAJ S/O N BASAPPA MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST R/AT NERAGANAHALLY VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT

... RESPONDENTS

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN OS.NO.55/99 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AT DAVANAGERE $DT.8.10.07.$ QUASH THE ORDER PASSED IN AND OS.NO.55/99 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AT DAVANAGERE, VIDE ANN-F. TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA.NOS.15 AND 16 FILED IN THE SAID SUIT.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL. HRG., THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

$o B D B D$ </u>

petitioner/plaintiff The iπ O.S.No.55/1999 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), at Davanagere, is before this Court praying for quashing the order dated 8.10.2007 made on I.As.15 & 16, at Annexure-'F'.

$2.$ Heard arquments.

$\mathbf{I}$

$3.$ Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after defendant $no.4$ iwho purchased property from defendant no.3) came on record and deposed against the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed I.A.15 under Section 151 of CPC to re-open the case, I.A.16 under order 16 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC to condone the delay in filing the list of witness. The learned Trial Judge after hearing arguments, has rejected both the applications. The Trial Judge has observed that the suit is of the year 1999 and it is not the case of the plaintiff that in spite of due diligence, the proposed witness could not be examined earlier or the said witness was not available. It was further observed that there was no justifiable reason to allow the plaintiff to adduce further evidence by reopening the case.

4. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed a grand-mother (father's against her auit mother) and others for declaration that she is the absolute owner of the auit echedule property and the sale-deeds dated 20.10.1994 and 27.4.1996 are concocted by defendants 1 to $3.$

5. The Trial Court has rightly rejected the applications. I see no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

In the result, the writ petition 6. fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

$VFP/-$

sd/-<br>Judge