Allowed

Sumitramma v. Jayaramu D N

Karnataka HC10 Aug 2023WP/11150/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Additional Civil Judge's order rejecting an application under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC to summon Axis Bank for document production. The High Court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the application and allowed the writ petition, directing the trial court to issue summons to the bank for specific documents as required for speedy disposal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22.03.2022 rejecting IA No.9 filed under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC is quashed. The trial court is directed to issue summons to the Manager, Axis Bank, Tumakuru, to produce document

Sumitramma Vs Jayaramu D N — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:28440 WP No. 11150 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 11150 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SUMITRAMMA W/O LATE H SHANTHARAJU @ GAJENDRA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A SAPTHAGIRI EXTENSION SIRA TOWN-572137.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI PRAMOD R., ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

JAYARAMU D N

¶13

S/O LATE D NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/O SRI RAMA NILAYA SAPTHAGIRI EXTENSION SIRA TOWN-572137.

¶14

Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

KRISHNAMURTHY D N S/O LATE D NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶16

R/A ASHIRVADA LAYOUT VARADANAHALLI, VEERAPURA POST DODDABALLAPURA-561203 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶17

SOMASHEKARA D N

¶18

S/O LATE D NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/A BEHIND SHAKTHI GAS GODOWN NITTUHALLI, DAVANAGERE-577004.

¶19

BHARATHI W/O K NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶20

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:28440 WP No. 11150 of 2022

¶21

VINUTHA W/O KUMAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶22

KIRAN S/O LATE RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶23

THE RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 6 ARE R/O NO.383, E W S, 3^RD STAGE HANUMANTHANAGARA BANNIMANTAPA, MYSORE-570015.

¶24

PREMALATHA D/O LATE D NARAYANAPPA W/O CHANDRASHEKARAPPA R AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/A SHIVAGANGA COLONY SANTHEBENNURU CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE-577552.

¶25

INDIRA D/O LATE D NARAYANAPPA W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A NO.565, 6^TH CROSS VIDHYAMANYA NAGARA ANDRAHALLI, VISHWA NIDAM POST BENGALURU-560091.

¶26

NAGARATHA D/O LATE D NARAYANAPPA W/O THYAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O SRIRANGANATHA OIL MILL SIRA TOWN-572137.

¶27

UMA D/O LATE D NARAYANAPPA W/O LATE GOPINATHA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:28440 WP No. 11150 of 2022

¶29

R/A NO.33/25, 1^ST FLOOR JAYALAKSHMAMMA LAYOUT PAMPAREDDY PALYA NAGARABAVI 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU-560072.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI VAGEESHA N., ADV. FOR R1 V/O DATED 07/06/2022 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2-R10 IS D/W)

¶32

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING ANNEXUREE ORDER DATED 22.03.2022 PASSED BY THE ADD.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SIRA IN OS NO.146/2015 ON THE IA NO.9 FILED UNDER ORDER 16 RULE 6 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

¶33

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petitioner/defendant No.8 in O.S.No.146/2015

¶36

on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order dated 22.03.2022 on I.A.No.9, by which, request to summon documents from Axis Bank is rejected.

¶37

Heard learned counsel Sri.Pramod R for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.Vageesha N., for respondent No.1. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶38

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:28440 WP No. 11150 of 2022

¶39

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

¶40

the suit is one for partition and separate possession. The petitioner/defendant No.8 claims that he is a purchaser of suit schedule property from the mother of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is the case of petitioner/ defendant No.8 that the mother and other defendants executed a Consent Deed and the original documents are deposited with the Axis Bank while obtaining loan. It is submitted that when the case was posted for crossexamination of D.W.1, petitioner/defendant No.8 filed application under Order XVI Rule 6 of CPC to summon Manager of Axis Bank, Tumkur Branch to produce the documents stated therein. The trial Court, under impugned order observing that the said documents are public documents can be produced by the petitioner/ defendant No.8 herself, rejected the application. It is also observed that certified copies of some of the documents could be obtained from the concerned Departments and could be produced before the Court. Learned counsel

¶41

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:28440 WP No. 11150 of 2022

¶42

would submit that reason assigned by the trial Court is not proper and the trial Court committed an error in rejecting I.A.No.9 seeking production of documents. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition.

¶43

Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Vageesh for respondent No.1/plaintiff would submit that defendant No.8 could produce her own accounts statement which she sought in the application and also she could produce certified copies of documents such as Registered Sale Deed, Consent Deed and M.R. extract along with RTC extracts. Therefore, he submits that the trial Court is justified in dismissing the application.

¶44

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application filed under Order XVI Rule 6 of CPC, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶45

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:28440 WP No. 11150 of 2022

¶46

The petitioner/ defendant No.8, when the suit was at

¶47

the stage of cross-examination of D.W.1 filed application I.A.No.9 to summon the Manager of Axis Bank, Tumakuru Branch to produce the following documents:

¶48

(1) Account Extract of Sumithramma, W/o.Late Shantharaju @ Gajanna, Residence of Sapthagiri Badavane, Sira Town, in her A/c No.915030045682627, Account Opening dated 05/09/2015.

¶49

(2) Original registered Sale Deed dated 09.08.2004.

¶50

(3) Consent Deed executed by the Sons of Sharadamma to execute the registered Sale Deed dated 09.08.2004 in favour of Sumithramma.

¶51

(4)M.R.Extract & RTC extract in respect of Land bearing Sy.No.299 to an extent of 5-00 acres including Karab situated at Mudigeri Viilage, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk.

¶52

It is true that the petitioner/defendant No.8 could obtain

¶53

her own accounts extracts and produce before this Court and also she could obtain certified copies of some of the documents, as observed by the trial Court. It is true that

¶54

the petitioner/defendant No.8 could produce her own statement of accounts and could also submit certain

¶55

¶56

NC: 2023:KHC:28440 WP No. 11150 of 2022

¶57

documents, but at the same time, if the application is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties and if documents are summoned from the Bank, it would save the time of the Court and it would aid in speedy disposal of the suit. As observed by the trial Court, all documents mentioned in the application are not public

¶58

documents. Moreover, the Consent Deed is an unregistered document, certified copy of which cannot be obtained. Thus, in the interest of justice, I.A.No.9 filed under Order XVI Rule 6 of CPC in O.S.No.146/2015 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira is allowed in respect of documents at Sl.Nos.2 to 4 listed in the application. The trial Court is directed to issue summons to the Manager, Axis Bank, Tumakuru Branch to produce the documents as stated above.

¶59

With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

MPK CT:bms: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Sumitramma v. Jayaramu D N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumitramma v. Jayaramu D N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagaraju Jetty Vs H.R.Sathish Kumar

Smt Souharda Rudrappa Vs Sri Vinay Raj H D

Smt. Sahana. S Vs Sri. Bishwanth S.H. (Bipin)

Sri K Appaji Vs Sri D M Doddamuniyappa

Sri. a Srinivas Vs Sri. Muniyappa Since Deceased by His Lrs

Smt. Manjula Vs Sri. M. C. Chandrashekaraiah