This is a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application by the Senior Civil Judge to produce an original document. The High Court refused interference, holding the lower court's decision was neither erroneous nor perverse.
The writ petition is rejected, upholding the impugned order dated 02.03.2019.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO.107233/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
(BY SRI.LAXMAN T.MANTAGANI & SRI.N.J.APPANNANAVAR, ADVS)
AND:
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.03.2019 ON I.A.NO.7 IN O.S.NO.75/2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAILHONGAL VIDE ANNEXURE-K.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners are before this Court challenging the order dated 02.03.2019 on I.A/No.7 in O.S.No.75/2016 passed by the
Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal.
O.S.No.75/2016 seeking direction to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after accepting the balance consideration amount. When the matter stood at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence, the defendants filed application in I.A.No.7 under Order 16 Rule 6 of CPC seeking direction to the plaintiff to produce the original
3
unregistered copy of “Kabja Sahit Jaminugal Karidi Kararu Patra” dated 18.09.2013. In the affidavit accompanying the application, it is stated that they have produced the notarized copy of the document dated 18.09.2013 and they state that the original is with the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed his objection denying the existence of the agreement dated 18.09.2013 and contended that the defendants only to harass the plaintiff have come up with the story of agreement dated 18.09.2013. The trial Court considering all the contentions raised by the parties, by the impugned order dated 02.03.2019 rejected I.A.No.7. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this
Court in this writ petition.
4
would submit that production of the original copy of the document dated 18.09.2013 is necessary for deciding the controversy involved in the suit. It is their contention that the original of the document dated 18.03.2013 is with the plaintiff and hence, they have sought for a direction to the plaintiff to produce the original of the document dated 18.09.2013.
5
prove the existence of the document dated 18.09.2013 and to prove that it is in possession of the plaintiff and thereafter, to seek for a direction to produce the original document.
defendants have only produced Xerox copy, it may not be appropriate to come to a conclusion that the original of the document dated 18.09.2013 is with the plaintiff that too when the plaintiff specifically denied the unregistered agreement of sale and possession of the same.
Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.
SD JUDGE
MBS/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to interfere with the trial court's rejection of an application to produce an alleged original document.
Whether the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India should be allowed.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the application was erroneous or perverse.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mallappa S/o Musheppa Andansheti
Smt. Channabasavva W/o Mallappa Andansheti
Madiwalappa S/o Mallappa Andanashetti
Firoz khan S/o Mehaboobkhan Pathan
Smt. Parakka W/o Basappa Dulannavar
S.G. Pandit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
