Writ Petition No. 2487 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11638 WP No. 2487 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 2487 OF 2024 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. G.C. SHAMARAJ, S/O DODDAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, GUNDAMAGERE VILLAGE, SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PARIKSHIT S.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASST. REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU NORTH DISTRICT - 561 203. 2. M/S. GUNDAMAGERE (VSSN) VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA LTD., (THE SOCIETY ESTABLISHED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT) GUNDAMAGERE VILLAGE, SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU NORTH DISTRICT - 561 203, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 3. PUNITH KUMAR G.N, S/O NAGARAJU, Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11638 WP No. 2487 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GUNDAMAGERE VSSN LTD., SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU NORTH DISTRICT - 561 203. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1; SRI. D.K. SRIRAMAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18/01/2024 PASSED BY R1 IN DISPUTE NO. SA.NI. 47/DAVA 03/2020-21 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 151 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ALSO APPLICATION FILED U/O XVIII RULE 17 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following relief :- "Quashing the order dated 18.01.2024 passed by 1st respondent in Dispute No.SA.NI.47/Dava 03/2020- 21 vide Annexure-F and allow the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of CPC vide Annexure-C and also application filed under order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC vide Annexure-D." - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11638 WP No. 2487 of 2024 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.01.2024 passed in Dispute No.SA.NI.47/DAVA 03/2020-21 by the 1st respondent/Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (for short 'the ARCS') in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for recalling of the stage and dismissal of the application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for marking of certain suit documents. 3. The petitioner had filed Dispute No.3/2020-2021 before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and in the said proceeding, petitioner had led evidence and marked certain documents. Petitioner having been cross-examined, the matter was posted for evidence of the respondent/Society. The Society led evidence of the Chief Executive Officer and marked 11 documents. At that stage, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11638 WP No. 2487 of 2024 petitioner filed the aforesaid two applications. The ARCS rejected both the applications on the ground that petitioner himself had earlier approached this Court, wherein an order directing ARCS to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, had been passed and on that basis the ARCS came to a conclusion that petitioner was delaying the proceedings and such an application to recall the stage and permit the petitioner to mark certain documents was not permissible. 4. Sri.S.S. Parikshit, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the documents were not marked by inadvertence. Petitioner was always under the impression that the said documents had been marked. It is only when the respondent had cross- examined the witness of the petitioner and a question was posed as regards the documents that petitioner realized about the non-marking of documents. It is not that fresh documents are being - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11638 WP No. 2487 of 2024 produced, it is documents, which are already on record, which are sought to be marked, which were not so marked by inadvertence. 5. He therefore, submits that ARCS ought to have exercised its discretionary power in favor of the petitioner and allowed the said application. 6. Sri R Shashidhara, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would support the order of the ARCS and submit that petitioner had taken nearly 10 months time to file the application, after the closure of the evidence of the petitioner. Learned counsel supports the order of the ARCS and submits that petitioner himself having approached this Court and obtained an order for expeditious disposal, the petitioner ought to have been diligent enough to have conducted the evidence and marked the documents in a proper manner. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11638 WP No. 2487 of 2024 7. Learned AGA also seeks to supports the order of the ARCS. 8. Heard Sri Parikshit S.S., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Yogesh D. Naik, learned AGA for 1st respondent, Sri D.K. Sriramappa, learned counsel for 2nd respondent and Sri R. Shashidhara, Learned counsel for 3rd respondent. So also perused the petition papers. 9. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that though an affidavit in lieu of evidence had been initially filed by the petitioner on 19.01.2023, the evidence of the petitioner got completed on 07.09.2023. 10. A perusal of the order indicates that ARCS has considered 19.01.2023 to be the date on which the affidavit was filed, when in fact the affidavit had been filed on 24.08.2023. What was filed on 19.01.2023 was the amended petition. Petitioner's witness was - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11638 WP No. 2487 of 2024 cross-examined on 31.08.2023 and on 07.09.2023 cross-examination was completed and matter posted for examination-in-Chief of the Respondent/Society on 03.10.2023. On 03.10.2023 the Respondent/Society filed its affidavit in lieu of evidence and got marked 11 documents. It is on the very same day, that petitioner also had filed aforesaid applications for re-call of the stage and marking of the documents. The ARCS has considered that there is delay of one year from the time the evidence was filed. In fact, what was required to be considered, was the date on which cross examination of the petitioner was completed i.e., 07.09.2023. If that is taken into consideration, filing of the application on 03.10.2023 cannot be said to be belated or would result in any prejudice to the Society. 11. In that view of the matter, I find that impugned order passed by the ARCS suffers from the above - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11638 WP No. 2487 of 2024 infirmities, in not considering the dates and events in a proper perspective and in not excising the discretionary power in a proper manner. As such, I pass the following:-
Decision
ORDER a. Writ petition is allowed. b. The impugned order dated 18.01.2024 Annexure F is quashed. Consequently, the application under Section 151 of the CPC vide Annexure C is allowed. The application under order XVIII Rule 70 of the CPC at an Annexure-D is also allowed. The petitioner is permitted to lead further evidence on the next date on which the matter is listed and mark the documents that the petitioner wishes to mark subject to all rules of applicable evidence. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49 CT: BHK