High Court allowed writ petition under Article 227 quashing civil court orders rejecting applications to produce title deeds and mark them as exhibits. Court permitted production subject to decision on suit merits being independent.
Impugned orders dated 4.1.2019 quashed; applications to produce documents and mark as exhibits allowed subject to observations.
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 AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7446/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
SMT PUTTAMMA W/O RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.129, 3RD CROSS, KUVEMPUNAGAR, NEAR STADIUM, TUMKUR - 572103 REPRESENTED BY HER SPA HOLDER, SRI RAMANNA, S/O LATE KAMBARANAGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT HANUMANAHALLI, DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 175.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMAIAH GOWDA L M., ADVOCATE)
AND :
2
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S. NAGARAJA., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 08.09.2021.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 4.1.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AT TUMKUR IN SUIT O.S.NO.613/2008 ON IA UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 14 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 4.1.2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AT TUMKUR IN SUIT O.S.NO.613/2008 ON IA UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-J AND ALLOW THIS W.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in OS No.613/2008 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru (for short, ‘the civil Court'), has
3
impugned the civil Court’s two orders of even date. The civil Court by these two separate orders has rejected the petitioner's applications under Order VII Rule 14 and Order XVIII and Rule 17 read with 151 CPC. The petitioner has filed the first application viz., the application under order VII Rule 14 of CPC to produce certified copies of the sale deeds executed in favour of his predecessors-in-title and the other application viz., application under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w 151 CPC for leave to mark these documents as exhibits in his evidence.
4
Ramaiah Gowda L M, submits that the petitioner, who has purchased a vacant site - the suit schedule property, commenced construction, and when the construction was at the foundation stage, the respondents interfered and therefore the petitioner has filed the present suit for permanent injunction simplicitor . However, in the cross-examination, the respondents have denied the petitioner/his predecessors' title to the subject property and therefore, the petitioner is constrained to obtain the certified copies of the title deeds in favour of his predecessors-intitle which is for a larger extent and produce the same.
5
would therefore be necessary. He also submits that this document lends credence to the evidence and the pleadings generally put forth by the plaintiff.
6
material circumstances in rejecting the application. As such, the petitioner must be permitted to produce additional document but with the observation that the Court shall decide on the merits of the suit independent of any observation in this order as the same is confined to test the merits of the petitioner's applications. Therefore the following
ORDER
The petition is allowed and the civil Court’s impugned orders dated 4.1.2019 are quashed and the petitioner's applications to produce additional documents and mark them in evidence as exhibits are allowed but subject to the observations as aforesaid.
SD/JUDGE
nv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere under Article 227 to allow production of title deeds in a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter when title is questioned
Whether rejection of application to produce documents under Order VII Rule 14 CPC by the civil court warrants interference by this court
Whether leave to mark documents as exhibits under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with 151 CPC can be granted when initial application to produce is rejected
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi ReddyReferred¶30
(2008)4 SCC 594 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
SMT PUTTAMMA W/O RAMANNA
SMT NAGARATHNAMMA W/O CONSTABLE BHEEMAIAH
SMT PARVATHAMMA W/O DODDARANGAIAH
B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
