Allowed

Mr G Anantha Shenoy v. Mrs Leelamma

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2023WP/26895/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition and quashed an impugned order by the Additional City Civil Judge. The lower court had allowed respondents to produce new rental agreements during final decree proceedings. The High Court held that the respondents failed to justify introducing new documents and did not establish how they came into custody, thus interfering with the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 17.04.2017 allowing respondents to produce rental agreements was quashed. Liberty granted to respondents to produce subject agreements in a legally permissible manner.

Mr G Anantha Shenoy Vs Mrs Leelamma — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:30109 WP No. 26895 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 26895 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR G ANANTHA SHENOY S/O LATE G. VENKATESH SHENOY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.211, II BLOCK, III STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 079.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY K.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

MRS LEELAMMA

¶12

G.S. KRISHNAMURTHY

¶13

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

G.S. RENUKA PRASAD

¶15

G.S. ANUP KUMAR

¶16

MRS. G.S. JAISHREE

¶17

MRS. G.S. SARALA

¶18

THE FIRST RESPONDENT IS THE WIFE AND RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 ARE THE CHILDREN OF SRI. G.S. SHIVARUDRAPPA ALL ARE RESIDING AT 10/B,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:30109 WP No. 26895 of 2017

¶21

NANJAPPA ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU 560 027.

¶22

THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 ARE REPRESETNED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY AND THEIR MOTHER SMT. LEELAMMA THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(R1 TO R6 ARE SERVED WITH COURT NOTICE)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER ON I.A.I DATED 17.4.17 PASSED IN FDP 112/2015 ON THE FILE OF XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE AT ANNEX-M BY SETTING ASIDE THE SAID ORDER.

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This petition is by the respondent in the final decree proceedings in FDP No.112/2015 on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru [for short, 'the civil Court' ]. The petitioner is aggrieved by the civil Court's order dated 17.04.2017, and the civil Court by this impugned order has allowed the

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:30109 WP No. 26895 of 2017

¶31

respondents' application [I.A. No.1] under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short, 'the CPC' ] to produce the originals of the two rental agreements dated 15.02.2014 and 14.03.2016. The civil Court has opined that the respondents must be granted an opportunity to bring the documents on record given the nature of the claim in the final decree application. The civil Court has also opined that the respondents must be permitted because the proceedings is listed for further evidence of DW.1.

¶32

Sri. Sanath Kumar Shetty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the civil Court has overlooked certain material circumstances, and when these circumstances are considered, the only reasonable conclusion would be that the application cannot be allowed permitting the respondents to bring on record these two documents in the manner now sought for.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:30109 WP No. 26895 of 2017

¶35

Sri. Sanath Kumar Shetty submits that

¶36

the respondents have stated in the affidavit accompanying the application that these rental agreements are the originals of the photocopies of the agreements filed at the time of filing the application for final decree [which is for determination of mesne profits in terms of the decree for ejectment which has attained finality]. The petitioner has filed objections to the applications specifically stating that the copies of the agreements produced with the application are different from the agreements now sought to be produced. In response to such objections, the respondents have filed a memo before the civil Court stating that these agreements are new agreements and not the originals of the photocopies given. There is no explanation offered to justify the prayer for leave to produce these new agreements, and after the commencement of evidence no person can assert right to produce the documents unhindered.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:30109 WP No. 26895 of 2017

¶39

Sri. Sanath Kumar Shetty further submits

¶40

that the respondents are not parties to these agreements, and these are between third parties. The respondents have not explained as to how they have come into custody of these documents and in the absence thereof, they could not have been permitted to produce these documents, and at the most, the petitioner could file appropriate application to secure the custody of the documents from the proper persons.

¶41

The respondents have remained absent though served. If the application for leave to produce photocopies of agreements is filed in a certain premise [ that originals are already filed ] and if in the light of the objections taken, a new set of circumstances are pressed into service [ the documents produced are copies of another set of agreements distinct and separate from the ones that are initially filed ], the reasons to support the

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:30109 WP No. 26895 of 2017

¶44

application in the light of the new plea must be brought on record. However, the respondents have not placed any reason in the changed circumstance. Further, as canvassed by Sri. Sanath Kumar Shetty, given the fact that the final decree proceedings will have to be decided on the mesne profits payable in terms of the decree, the essential questions must be answered based on the evidence on record as regards the rate of rent at the relevant point of time. The agreements, if relevant, could only be introduced through persons who are parties to the such agreements, or who could have come into custody of the agreements in a manner that would be proper. The civil Court has allowed the application overlooking these circumstances and therefore there must be interference with liberty to the respondents to produce these documents in the manner that would be permissible. Hence the following:

¶45

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC:30109 WP No. 26895 of 2017

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 17.04.2017 in FDP No.112/2015 on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru is quashed with liberty to the respondents to have recourse in law otherwise to produce the subject agreements.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

AN/-

Mr G Anantha Shenoy v. Mrs Leelamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr G Anantha Shenoy v. Mrs Leelamma

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

M/S Gic Pet and Ct Scan Bapunagar LLP Vs Wipro Ge Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

Smt. Venkubai Vs Sri.P.Subramanyam

Smt. Mallamma Vs Sri. H. v. Siddappa

K N Anand Kumar Vs P Chandra Mohan

Mrs Euna Rodrigues Vs Mrs Philomena Rodrigues

Mr. S Nagaraj Vs M/S Margadarshi Chits (K) Private Limited