Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.725 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
SRI H D DEVEGOWDA
S/O LATE DODDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS,
‘AMOGHA’, PADMANABHANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560070. … PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH G R, ADVOCATE)
AND
R
M/S NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR
ENTERPRISE LIMITED,
NO 1, MIDFORD HOUSE,
MIDFORD GARDEN, OFF M.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE 560001,
REP BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. … RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS IN OS N/O.4545/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
ID.VIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 15),
BENGALURU; DIRECTION AS THE CASE MAY BE SETTING ASIDE
/THE ORDER DATE 17/11/2020 PASSED ON IA NOS.VII AND IX
BY THE ID.VII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH
15), BENGALURU AND BY ALLOWING THE SAID IA NOS. VIII AND
IX, PERMIT THE PETITIONER/DEFENDANT TO ADDUCE HIS
ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Petitioner happens to be the sole defendant in a civil
suit in O.S.No.4545/2012; this suit is for a decree of
damages; it is founded on the alleged tort of defamation;
evidence of respondent-plaintiff having been accomplished, a
number of times, opportunity was given to the petitioner to
lead his evidence; however, he did not avail the same; matter
was posted for arguments; petitioner by the subject
applications filed serially & belatedly requested for reopening
the suit stage so that he can lead his evidence; the learned
trial Judge vide order dated 17.11.2020 (Annexure-A) has
declined this request; that is how petitioner is now knocking
at the doors of Writ Court.
2. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and
having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to
grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
a) The suit was filed by the respondent on 27.06.2012;
it is founded on alleged defamation; plaintiff claims the
damages in a sum of Rupees Ten Crore; Written Statement
has been filed on 13.08.2012 resisting the suit; issues have
been framed years ago; plaintiff’s evidence was completed on
3
06.02.2019; matter was posted to 26.02.2019 for the defence
evidence; however, petitioner & his counsel remained absent
and therefore, his evidence being taken as nil, case was
posted for arguments.
b) When the suit was posted for arguments, about a
year thereafter the subject applications are moved once again,
for reopening the suit stage; no affidavit of the petitioner is
filed in support thereof nor any reason is assigned for not
filing one; only petitioner’s advocate on record has filed a
Memorandum of Facts in support of the said applications,
even when what was sought to be stated was within the
personal knowledge of the petitioner; the said Memorandum
of Facts dated 28.06.2020 supporting the application in IA
No.IX at para 3 reads as under:
“The defendant, as already submitted, is an
aged politician and his health condition is also not
providing adequate time to go through the evidence
already prepared, which contains voluminous
records. Al the records to rebut the allegation of the
plaintiff has to be furnished before this Hon’ble
Court, to establish the case of the defendant. The
truth is to be proved before this Hon’ble Court,
which calls for production of deeds, act, and things
of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s intention to suppress
the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of
expression needs to be established before this
Hon’ble Court.”
4
The explanation offered by the advocate on record as above on
behalf of the petitioner for not availing the umpteen
opportunities earlier granted for leading defence evidence is
hardly plausible, to say the least.
c) The learned trial judge though not in a happy
language structures the impugned order with the following
reason:
“ This suit is filed by the plaintiffs seeking damages
from the defendant, in which, matter was posted
for defendant’s evidence, defendant remained
absent. Hence, the defendant’s evidence has been
taken as nil and now when the matter was posted
for argument, defendant once again filed I.A.No.VIII
& IX seeking to reopen the stage for adducing
defendant’s evidence. In the Memorandum of Facts
filed in support of I.A.No.VIII & IX due to peculiar
circumstances, defendant could not adduce his
evidence. On perusal of the records, it appears that
on 06.02.2019 matter was posted for defendant’s
evidence, but defendant and his counsel remained
absent; defendant’s evidence was closed on
26.02.2019, thereafter on 03.06.2019, defendant
had filed I.A.No.V & VI for re-opening of the stage;
by allowing said applications once again order was
given to defendant to produce evidence; but even if
four adjournments were given, defendant failed to
produce his evidence; again on 07.09.2018, his
side was closed; thereafter, defendant had filed
I.A.No.VII for re-opening the stage and said
application was allowed on 31.10.2019 by
imposing cost of Rs.2,000/-. Even after that once
again, defendant filed produce his evidence and
now after about almost one year once again
defendant filed present application at I.A.No.VIII &
IX, which goes to show that defendant is not so
serious in conducting the proceedings and he is in
5
the habit of filing application like present one, only
with an intention to drag the matter; hence it is
necessary to reject the application filed by the
defendant.”
The opinion of the learned judge that the petitioner has been
dragging on the suit proceeding is formed on the basis of
what has been reflected in the Order Sheet; there is no reason
to doubt the same; in matters like this, a Writ court cannot
run a race of opinions with learned judges of the Courts
below.
d) The suits founded on the tort of defamation need to
be tried as expeditiously as possible; reputation, be it
personal or occupational, for any person is sacrosanct; the
Apex Court has ruled that, the right to reputation is a facet of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India; the public memory
being too short to be little, the claim for redressal for the hurt
of reputation merits speedier consideration and ideally
speaking, before the public memory fades; in defamation
suits, award of damages in terms of money hardly constitutes
a full recompense for the injury suffered; delayed justice
makes it still worse; this is an added reason for the speedy
trial of such suits; they cannot be allowed to be dragged on
indefinitely; this inarticulate premise having animated the
6
decision of the learned trial judge, impugned order is not
vulnerable for challenge.
e) The impugned order cannot be faltered for yet
another reason too; learned judge of the Court below having
exercised his discretion in accordance with rules of reason &
justice, has made the impugned order the kind of which does
not merit a deeper examination at the hands of a Writ Court
exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally
vested in it by Article 227, vide SADHANA LODH Vs.
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., & ANOTHER, (2003) 3
SCC 524.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition being
devoid of merits, is liable to be rejected in limine and
accordingly, it is.
Learned trial judge is requested to dispose off the
subject suit within an outer limit of nine months, all
contentions of the parties having been otherwise kept open.
The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to
the learned judge forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Cbc/Bsv
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.725 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
SRI H D DEVEGOWDA
S/O LATE DODDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS,
‘AMOGHA’, PADMANABHANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560070. … PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH G R, ADVOCATE)
AND
R
M/S NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR
ENTERPRISE LIMITED,
NO 1, MIDFORD HOUSE,
MIDFORD GARDEN, OFF M.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE 560001,
REP BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. … RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS IN OS N/O.4545/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
ID.VIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 15),
BENGALURU; DIRECTION AS THE CASE MAY BE SETTING ASIDE
/THE ORDER DATE 17/11/2020 PASSED ON IA NOS.VII AND IX
BY THE ID.VII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH
15), BENGALURU AND BY ALLOWING THE SAID IA NOS. VIII AND
IX, PERMIT THE PETITIONER/DEFENDANT TO ADDUCE HIS
ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Petitioner happens to be the sole defendant in a civil
suit in O.S.No.4545/2012; this suit is for a decree of
damages; it is founded on the alleged tort of defamation;
evidence of respondent-plaintiff having been accomplished, a
number of times, opportunity was given to the petitioner to
lead his evidence; however, he did not avail the same; matter
was posted for arguments; petitioner by the subject
applications filed serially & belatedly requested for reopening
the suit stage so that he can lead his evidence; the learned
trial Judge vide order dated 17.11.2020 (Annexure-A) has
declined this request; that is how petitioner is now knocking
at the doors of Writ Court.
2. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and
having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to
grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
a) The suit was filed by the respondent on 27.06.2012;
it is founded on alleged defamation; plaintiff claims the
damages in a sum of Rupees Ten Crore; Written Statement
has been filed on 13.08.2012 resisting the suit; issues have
been framed years ago; plaintiff’s evidence was completed on
3
06.02.2019; matter was posted to 26.02.2019 for the defence
evidence; however, petitioner & his counsel remained absent
and therefore, his evidence being taken as nil, case was
posted for arguments.
b) When the suit was posted for arguments, about a
year thereafter the subject applications are moved once again,
for reopening the suit stage; no affidavit of the petitioner is
filed in support thereof nor any reason is assigned for not
filing one; only petitioner’s advocate on record has filed a
Memorandum of Facts in support of the said applications,
even when what was sought to be stated was within the
personal knowledge of the petitioner; the said Memorandum
of Facts dated 28.06.2020 supporting the application in IA
No.IX at para 3 reads as under:
“The defendant, as already submitted, is an
aged politician and his health condition is also not
providing adequate time to go through the evidence
already prepared, which contains voluminous
records. Al the records to rebut the allegation of the
plaintiff has to be furnished before this Hon’ble
Court, to establish the case of the defendant. The
truth is to be proved before this Hon’ble Court,
which calls for production of deeds, act, and things
of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s intention to suppress
the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of
expression needs to be established before this
Hon’ble Court.”
4
The explanation offered by the advocate on record as above on
behalf of the petitioner for not availing the umpteen
opportunities earlier granted for leading defence evidence is
hardly plausible, to say the least.
c) The learned trial judge though not in a happy
language structures the impugned order with the following
reason:
“ This suit is filed by the plaintiffs seeking damages
from the defendant, in which, matter was posted
for defendant’s evidence, defendant remained
absent. Hence, the defendant’s evidence has been
taken as nil and now when the matter was posted
for argument, defendant once again filed I.A.No.VIII
& IX seeking to reopen the stage for adducing
defendant’s evidence. In the Memorandum of Facts
filed in support of I.A.No.VIII & IX due to peculiar
circumstances, defendant could not adduce his
evidence. On perusal of the records, it appears that
on 06.02.2019 matter was posted for defendant’s
evidence, but defendant and his counsel remained
absent; defendant’s evidence was closed on
26.02.2019, thereafter on 03.06.2019, defendant
had filed I.A.No.V & VI for re-opening of the stage;
by allowing said applications once again order was
given to defendant to produce evidence; but even if
four adjournments were given, defendant failed to
produce his evidence; again on 07.09.2018, his
side was closed; thereafter, defendant had filed
I.A.No.VII for re-opening the stage and said
application was allowed on 31.10.2019 by
imposing cost of Rs.2,000/-. Even after that once
again, defendant filed produce his evidence and
now after about almost one year once again
defendant filed present application at I.A.No.VIII &
IX, which goes to show that defendant is not so
serious in conducting the proceedings and he is in
5
the habit of filing application like present one, only
with an intention to drag the matter; hence it is
necessary to reject the application filed by the
defendant.”
The opinion of the learned judge that the petitioner has been
dragging on the suit proceeding is formed on the basis of
what has been reflected in the Order Sheet; there is no reason
to doubt the same; in matters like this, a Writ court cannot
run a race of opinions with learned judges of the Courts
below.
d) The suits founded on the tort of defamation need to
be tried as expeditiously as possible; reputation, be it
personal or occupational, for any person is sacrosanct; the
Apex Court has ruled that, the right to reputation is a facet of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India; the public memory
being too short to be little, the claim for redressal for the hurt
of reputation merits speedier consideration and ideally
speaking, before the public memory fades; in defamation
suits, award of damages in terms of money hardly constitutes
a full recompense for the injury suffered; delayed justice
makes it still worse; this is an added reason for the speedy
trial of such suits; they cannot be allowed to be dragged on
indefinitely; this inarticulate premise having animated the
6
decision of the learned trial judge, impugned order is not
vulnerable for challenge.
e) The impugned order cannot be faltered for yet
another reason too; learned judge of the Court below having
exercised his discretion in accordance with rules of reason &
justice, has made the impugned order the kind of which does
not merit a deeper examination at the hands of a Writ Court
exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally
vested in it by Article 227, vide SADHANA LODH Vs.
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., & ANOTHER, (2003) 3
SCC 524.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition being
devoid of merits, is liable to be rejected in limine and
accordingly, it is.
Learned trial judge is requested to dispose off the
subject suit within an outer limit of nine months, all
contentions of the parties having been otherwise kept open.
The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to
the learned judge forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Cbc/Bsv