AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H. Billappa, J.—In these writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the order dated 25.9.2013, passed by the Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 8927/2006 on I.A. Nos. 22 and 23. By the impugned order at Annexure-D, the Trial Court has rejected the applications filed by the petitioner to re-open the case and lead further evidence.
Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed these writ petitions.
Briefly stated the facts are:
The petitioner has filed suit in O.S. No. 8927/2006 for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioner has adduced her evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed I.A. Nos. 22 and 23 to re-open the case and lead further evidence. The Trial Court has rejected the applications. Therefore, these writ petitions.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the petitioner wanted to examine one more witness and therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the applications. He therefore submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The suit is for permanent injunction. The petitioner has adduced her evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed applications to examine one more witness. The Trial Court rejected the applications on the ground that the suit is for permanent injunction and the petitioner has not examined the witness inspite of sufficient opportunity and the witness cannot speak regarding the encroachment. I do not find any error or illegality in it. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. There is no merit in these writ petitions and therefore, they are liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are rejected.