SMT. CHITHRA PANICKER v. SMT. NAVITHA M

(BY SRI. K.P. BHUVAN., ADVOCATE) AND:

SMT. NAVITHA M., W/O. P. LOKESH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.1209, 2ND H MAIN ROAD, EAST OF NGEF, KASTURINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 043.

SRI. A. NARASIMHAN SON OF ARVINDSWAMY, - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:1742 WP No. 16941 of 2023 AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, FLAT NO.821, SHOBHA FLOWER, JAYANAGAR, SANGAM CRICLE, BANGALORE - 560 011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.S. VINOD, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.7.2023 IN OS.NO.5183/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CH-33) VIDE ANNX-A BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AS ILLEGAL AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 26.07.2023 passed in O.S. No.5183/2016 on the file of the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore [for short, ‘the trial Court’] whereby, the request made by the petitioner-defendant No.1 for adjournment was refused by the trial Court, which proceeded to post the matter for judgment. However, in view of the interim order dated 04.08.2023 passed in present petition, the trial Court has so far not pronounced the judgment in the matter, and - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:1742 WP No. 16941 of 2023 same is posted on 19.02.2023 to await further orders from this Court.

2. The material on record discloses that the respondent No.1-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for ejectment and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit is being contested by the petitioner-defendant No.1, who not only filed the written statement repudiating the plaint averments but also put forth counter claim under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and the matter is pending adjudication before the trial Court. The respondent No.1 adduced oral and documentary evidence pursuant to which, the petitioner also adduced oral and documentary evidence during the course of which, the document styled as “Business Participation Agreement” was marked as Ex. D6 on behalf of the petitioner. The Issues/question as to sufficiency or otherwise of the stamp duty paid/payable on Ex.D6 is pending adjudication before the appellate authority under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. The said - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:1742 WP No. 16941 of 2023 appeal before the appellate authority is pending consideration and has not been disposed of.

Under these circumstances, the petitioner made a request to the trial Court to adjourn the matter for the purpose of enabling disposal of the appeal before the appellate authority on the ground that till the appeal was disposed of, Ex.D6 cannot be relied upon by the petitioner in support of her defense. However, the trial Court was of the opinion that the said request cannot be entertained and proceeded to pass the impugned order posting the matter for judgment, which is assailed in the present petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions, submits that if the petitioner is permitted to place reliance upon Ex.D6 for the purpose of disposal of the suit and the question/Issue regarding payment of stamp duty on Ex.D6 is directed to be decided by the authorities, the grievance of the petitioner in the present petition would be addressed sufficiently. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:1742 WP No. 16941 of 2023

Per contra, learned counsel respondent No.1-plaintiff on instructions, submits that he has no objection for the trial Court to consider Ex.D6 on merits and dispose of the suit in accordance with law by leaving open the question regarding stamp duty to be decided by the appellate authority.