Allowed

Sri S Ravi Kumar v. Sri Chinnappa v

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2023WP/9324/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka addressed a writ petition challenging an order under Order XI Rule 16 CPC requiring defendants to produce an original GPA. The Court held that since the defendants proved loss of the original via police complaint and placed a certified copy on record, the trial court erred in demanding the original.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; order of the trial court directing production of the original GPA was quashed.

Sri S Ravi Kumar Vs Sri Chinnappa v — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:31960 WP No. 9324 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 9324 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. S. RAVI KUMAR, S/O H. SATHYANARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶8

SMT. VANAJAMMA, W/O H. SATHYANARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, BOTH THE PETITIONERS ARE R/AT NO.5, ‘MOOKAMBIKA NILAYA’, HANUMA REDDY LAYOUT, CHINNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, MARATHAHALLI POST, BENGALURU – 560 037.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. NAUMAN S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI. CHINNAPPA V., S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.169, I CROSS, NEAR ANJENAPPA TEMPLE, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 037.

¶14

SRI. NARENDRA, S/O H. SATHYANARAYANA REDDY,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:31960 WP No. 9324 of 2020

¶17

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, HANUMA REDDY LAYOUT, CHINNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, MARATHAHALLI POST, BENGALURU – 560 037.

¶18

SMT. BHARATHI, D/O H. SATHYANARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶19

SMT. ANU, D/O H. SATHYANARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶20

RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 CAN BE SERVED AT NO.5, ‘MOOKAMBIKA NILAYA’, HANUMA REDDY LAYOUT, CHINNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, MARATHAHALLI POST, BENGALURU – 560 037.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.MANOJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2-R4 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 25.08.2020)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.06.2020 PASSED ON IA FILED BY THE R-1/ PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER XI RULE 16 R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE MADE IN O.S.NO.25896/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT AT BENGALURU (CCH-74) AND DISMISS THE SAID APPLICATION AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:31960 WP No. 9324 of 2020

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioners/defendants in O.S.No.25896/2013 on the file of LXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-74), are before this Court to set aside the order dated 19.06.2020 passed on I.A. filed under Order XI Rule 16 of CPC, wherein the petitioners herein are directed to produce original GPA dated 29.08.2002 executed by one K.V.Krishnaswamy Iyengar in favour of Sathyanarayana Reddy.

¶28

Heard Sri. Nauman.S., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Manoj, learned counsel for respondent No.1 through video conference.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed an application under Order XI Rule 16 of CPC, praying for a direction to defendants to produce original General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 29.08.2002 said to have executed by one K.V.Krishnaswamy Iyengar in favour of Sathyanarayana Reddy. It is submitted by the learned counsel, that petitioner No.1/defendant No.2 filed a memo stating that the defendant had lost original GPA and also filed acknowledgment for having filed police complaint.

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:31960 WP No. 9324 of 2020

¶31

Moreover, it is submitted that certified copy of the same was placed on record. Therefore, he submits that when certified copy of GPA is placed on record and when it is the case of petitioners/defendants that original GPA is lost, the trial Court could not have directed the defendants to produce original GPA. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff would submit that GPA is not a registered document and the same was produced before other Court in different proceedings i.e., certified copy which is placed on record. Learned counsel would further submit that the plaintiff disputes GPA and hence, called upon the defendants to produce original GPA.

¶33

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 allowing I.A. filed under Order XI Rule 16 of CPC, to produce original GPA. Order XI Rule 16 of CPC permits issuance of notice to any party to produce any documents referred to in pleadings or affidavits. It is a definite case of the defendants/petitioners herein that they

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:31960 WP No. 9324 of 2020

¶35

have lost original GPA and have also produced acknowledgment for having filed police complaint in that regard. Moreover, the defendants have placed on record the certified copy of the same, which was produced before the Court in other proceedings. When it is the case of the defendants that they have lost the original GPA, the Court could not have directed the defendants to produce the original of the same. The Court could evaluate the certified copy and if it is permissible to look into the said document, it could have looked into. Depending on the facts and evidence on record, Court could appreciate Xerox copy or could draw adverse inference.

¶36

With the above, writ petition stands disposed off.

¶37

In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2023 does not survive for consideration.

¶38

SD/JUDGE

¶39

SMJ

¶40

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Sri S Ravi Kumar v. Sri Chinnappa v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S Ravi Kumar v. Sri Chinnappa v

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

Naseemulla Vs Vidya Bai

Smt. Mahalaxmi M Danaraddi Vs Sri Somashekar Hadli

Smt Priyanka Y Kanni Vs Sri Nikhil Jagadish Agadi

Sri R v Sarvanan Vs Santhosh B N

Mr. H.A Gopinath, Vs Mr. Srinidhi Anantharaman

The Project Manager Vs Smt. Shyamala