Allowed

Smt. Renuka Seshadri v. Smt. Shobha Prabhakar

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2024WP/4727/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petition filed under Article 227 to quash the Trial Court's order rejecting an application to summon bank documents. The Court held the Trial Court erred by deeming the documents irrelevant despite their connection to the suit schedule properties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 06.02.2024 in O.S.No.422/2017 set aside; I.A.No.25 allowed; Trial Court directed to issue summons as sought and proceed.

Smt. Renuka Seshadri Vs Smt. Shobha Prabhakar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:11231 WP No. 4727 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 4727 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. RENUKA SESHADRI W/O SANTOSH KANKANALU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT BHAVAN TOWER NEAR MAI TOWER FLAT NO.109, 1^ST FLOOR, NAHADA-1, DUBAI UNITED ARAB EMIRATES REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI SESHADRI NAIDU R AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA NAIDU R/A NO.113, SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD NEAR BBMP OFFICE, DODDAKANAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 035.

¶9

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SURESH S. LOKRE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SHRAVAN S. LOKRE., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. SHOBHA PRABHAKAR W/O K S PRABHAKAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.116/117, 1^ST CROSS, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE BENGALURU-560085.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:11231 WP No. 4727 of 2024

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06/02/2024 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED UNDER IA NO. 25 FILED BY THE PETITIONER / PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER XI RULE 14 R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER IA NO. 25 FILED BY THE PETITIONER / PLAINTIFF FILED UNDER ORDER XI RULE 14, R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AND ETC.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.422/2017 on the file of the VIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore is directed against the impugned order dated 06.02.2024 passed on I.A.No.25 whereby the said application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 14, CPC to issue hand summons to the Chief Manager, P.N.B Housing Finance Limited seeking summoning of details of loan sanction letter and original list of documents hypotheticated that said bank, was rejected by the Trial Court.

¶20

Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

¶21

The respondent having been served with notice of this petition has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested this petition.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:11231 WP No. 4727 of 2024

¶24

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondent-defendant for declaration and other reliefs in relations to the suit schedule immovable properties. The said suit is being contested by the respondent-defendant. During the course of trial, pursuant to the order dated 12.12.2023 passed in WP.No.24134/2023, the petitioner-plaintiff filed an application seeking summoning of the aforesaid documents from the bank. The said application having been opposed by the respondentdefendant, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶25

A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the primary reason for rejection of the application by the Trial Court is that the documents sought to be summoned are not relevant for material for the purpose of adjudication of the issued in controversy between the parties. In this context, it is relevant to state that the Trial Court has failed to consider and appreciate that the documents sought to be summoned related to the suit schedule properties and as such, the same would be relevant for the

¶26

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:11231 WP No. 4727 of 2024

¶27

purpose of deciding the suit before the Trial Court. At any rate, it is only after the documents are summoned and both parties are provided an opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence in relation to the said documents would Trial Court been called upon to consider and appreciate the evidentiary value of the said documents. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court clearly

¶28

erred in rejecting the application which has occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶29

In the result, I pass the following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

(i) The petition is hereby allowed.

¶32

(ii) The impugned order dated 06.02.2024 in O.S.No.422/2017 on the file of the VIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, is hereby set aside.

¶33

(iii) I.A.No.25 filed by the petitioner, stands allowed.

¶34

(iv) The Trial Court is directed to issue summons as to

¶35

the person as sought for in I.A.No.25 and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶36

SD/JUDGE

¶37

DHA

¶38

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Smt. Renuka Seshadri v. Smt. Shobha Prabhakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Renuka Seshadri v. Smt. Shobha Prabhakar

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 Coffee Day Global Ltd. Vs M/S Sundarya Graphics

Smt B a Rajeshwari Vs Smt. Gowramma

Mr Syed Zahid Ali Vs M/s. Ganapathi Vishnu Lakshmi

M/S Mondo Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S N D Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Sri C N Mohan Vs Shri N Mare Gowda

Smt Gowramma Vs Smt Jayamma