This High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to set aside a common order of the Trial Court rejecting applications to summon a municipal commissioner and produce document xerox copies. The Court held summing the commissioner was futile as they lacked the plan, and xerox copies are inadmissible.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:36617 WP No. 18643 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 18643 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MR. M. H. SANAULLA S/O A.R HASAN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT SHASTRI NAGAR, COLLEGE ROAD, MADIKERI - 571 201.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E.,ADVOCATE) AND:
Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. ELIYAS M. U. S/O LATE USMAN, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT SHASTRI NAGAR, COLLEGE ROAD, MADIKERI - 571 201. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GIRISHA N R.,ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASH / SET-ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED 03/07/2023 PASSED ON IA NO. XIV AND XV BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MADIKERI IN OS NO. 38/2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATIONS AS PRAYED FOR VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner - plaintiff has filed this petition seeking to set aside the common order dated 03.07.2023 passed on IA.No.14 and IA.No.15 by Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Kodagu, Madikeri in O.S.No.38/2016 whereby the Trial Court has rejected the applications filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for summoning the Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Madikeri, Kodagu as a witness and for production of Xerox copies of the documents.
the complete adjudication of the suit the evidence of Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Madikeri, Kodagu, is
necessary so that the petitioner - plaintiff can place the plan before the Court which would help the court to decide the dispute between the parties. It is submitted that the petitioner has made a genuine attempt to get the sanctioned plan for block No.11, however, he could not get the same. Hence, it has necessitated him to move both the applications to prove the case.
for the recovery of the possession from the defendant alleging that the defendant has encroached upon the suit schedule property. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff had filed an application for appointment of Court Commissioner on earlier occasion and the Court Commissioner has submitted the report stating that he is unable to conduct the survey of the suit schedule property as per the memo of instructions given by the parties to the suit unless he has the plan of Block No.11. The material on record clearly indicates that the Court Commissioner has returned the warrant to the trial Court stating that he is unable to carry out the undertaken of survey in the absence of the plan of the property in question. It is also admitted fact that, the City Municipal Council informs the petitioner that the plan of block No.11 is not available with them and the attempt of the petitioner to obtain the certified copy of the said plan has failed. When things stood thus seeking for summoning the Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Madikeri, Kodagu would not serve any purpose, as the City Municipal Council vide letter dated
28.04.2022 has clearly stated that the plan of block No.11 is not available. This Court is of the considered view that, there is no error in the impugned Order dated 03.07.2023 of the Trial Court wherein it has rejected the petitioner's application for summoning the Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Madikeri, Kodagu, as a witness in the suit. Insofar as, prayer of the petitioner to produce the xerox copies of the documents to lead secondary evidence would not arise and xerox copies are not admissible in evidence. Hence this Court is of the considered view that, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court does not warrant any interference in the present petition. The petition being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
LDC
List No.: 38 Sl No.: 18
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application to summon the Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Madikeri, Kodagu as a witness.
Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application for production of xerox copies of documents under Order VII Rule 14 CPC.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr. M. H. Sanaulla
Mr. Eliyas M. U.
Vijaykumar A. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
