AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Sreenivas Gowda, J.—This writ petition is by the 2nd plaintiff in O.S. 355/2004 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Dharwad, challenging the impugned order Annexure-A dated 21.10.2013, rejecting his application filed under Order XVI Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for reopening the case and for summoning the vigilance officials of H.E.S.C.O.M. to give evidence in respect of Ex.P.64, 65 and 66.
Heard, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order.
The plaintiffs have brought the suit O.S. 355/2004 for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from divesting illegally the plaintiffs 1 and 2 of their lawful possession and wahiwat of the suit schedule property. The suit was resisted by the defendant denying the case of the plaintiffs.
After the case was posted for final arguments, the petitioner filed the application under Order XVI Rules 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 CPC for re-opening of the case and for summoning the Assistant Executive Engineer (Vigilance), H.E.S.C.O.M., to depose in respect of Ex.P.64, P.65 and P.66. Ex.P.64 is the FIR registered against the petitioner by the Vigilance Department of H.E.S.C.O.M. on the complaint lodged by the Vigilance Officer of H.E.S.C.O.M.. Ex.P.65 is the complaint in Crime No. 119/07 lodged by the Vigilance Officer against the petitioner regarding misuse of power. Ex.P.66 is the order sheet of the said criminal case registered in Crime No. 202/2007.
The case of the petitioner is when these documents were confronted to the defendant who was examined as D.W.1 in the course of his cross-examination he pleaded ignorance of Exhibits-P.64, 65 and 66. Therefore, it has become necessary for the plaintiffs to prove the contents of these documents. The Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that even though D.W.1 has deposed his ignorance about these documents but the fact remains that these documents are certified copies and their validity cannot be ignored.
I have carefully gone through the reasons assigned by the Trial Court for rejection of the application filed by the petitioner and I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court warranting my interference.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.