AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Krishna S.Dixit, J
Petitioners being the plaintiffs in a declaration suit in O.S.No.8352/2012 is knocking at the doors of the Writ Court grieving against the order dated
05.03.2021, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A whereby the learned XLIV Additional City Civil Judge (CCH-65), Bengaluru City, has accepted a
photostat copy of the GPA dated 06.08.1990 by way of secondary evidence invoking the provisions of Sections 65 & 66 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter
inasmuch as, the writ court exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227 is not to interdict the ongoing suit
proceedings on the basis of argued grounds of the kind.
Entertaining the writ petition on the grievance that is sought to be made out therein, militates against the Parliamentary intent that finds utterance in
the amendment to Section 115 of CPC, 1908; amendment provides for interference in revision only where the reversal of impugned order results in the
termination of the suit proceedings; the petitioners can make the impugned order one of the grounds for laying a challenge to the judgment & decree if
& when entered adverse to their interest as provided u/s 105 r/w Order XLIII Rule 1A of the amended Code.
With the above liberty, writ petition is disposed off and no opinion as to the validity of impugned order is expressed.