Sri M Prakash Vs Sri Shivanna

BOTH ARE RESIDING IN PORTION OF NO.142, 4TH CROSS OLD KHANESHUMARI NO.146/231, THEN NO.D148/231 BBMP WARD 129, HANUMANTHARAYANA PALYA, SRIGANDADAKAVALU VISHWANEEDAM POST BENGALURU - 560 091.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI SAGAR B.B, ADV.)

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:44696 WP No. 16134 of 2021

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.5362/2017 ON THE FILE OF XXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU CCH-33QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.08.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.60 FILED UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND ON I.A.NO.61 UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 14 R/W SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN O.S.NO.5362/2017 ON THE FILE OF XXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-33) VIDE ANNEXURE-G.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 07.08.2021 passed on IA nos.60 & 61 in O.S.No.5362/2017 by the Court of XXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶29

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶30

Suit in O.S.No.5362/2017 is filed by the petitioner herein

¶31

seeking the relief of declaration of his title in respect of plaint 'B' & 'C' schedule property, to declare that the sale deed dated 15.07.2016 is not binding on the plaintiff, for mesne profits and also for arrears of rent. The defendants have filed written

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44696 WP No. 16134 of 2021

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

statement in the said suit and have opposed the suit claim. When the suit was at the stage of recording defendants' evidence, IA no.60 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to recall PW-1 for the purpose of further examination and IA no.61 was filed under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC to permit the plaintiff to produce three documents. The prayers made in IA nos.60 & 61 were opposed by the defendants by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected IA nos.60 & 61 and being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court.

¶35

Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, has submitted that the documents which are sought to be produced are in respect of Schedule 'B' & 'C' properties and they stand in the name of the petitioner. Inadvertently, the said documents have not been produced and for the purpose of proper adjudication of the dispute in the suit, the documents are relevant.

¶36

Per contra, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents has argued in support of the order impugned and

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:44696 WP No. 16134 of 2021

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

he has submitted that the documents which are produced were

¶41

in existence at the time of filing the suit. During the course of cross-examination of PW-1, he has specifically admitted that he had not filed any application seeking transfer of khatha of the suit schedule property in his name. Only to overcome such admissions, the documents are sought to be produced. The documents are produced at a belated stage, and therefore, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶42

The suit in O.S.No.5362/2017 is filed for the relief of declaration of title in respect of suit schedule 'B' & 'C' properties and other reliefs. Plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1. Suit is at the stage of cross-examination of DW-1. At the said stage, the aforesaid two applications have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has sought to permit him to produce three documents. The particulars of the said documents are as under:

¶43

Original katha certificate issued by the BBMP.

¶44

Original katha extract issued by the BBMP.

¶45

Tax paid receipts 8 in numbers.

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:44696 WP No. 16134 of 2021

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

For the purpose of marking the said documents, a prayer is also made to recall PW-1 for further cross-examination.

¶50

The Trial Court in the order impugned has observed that plaintiff has not explained why the documents were not produced along with the plaint. The khatha certificate and the tax paid receipts which are sought to be produced by the plaintiff relates to the year 2021, whereas the suit is filed in the year 2017. Having regard to the relief sought for in the suit, in my considered view, the documents in question would have some relevance and if the plaintiff is not permitted to produce the same, he would be put to hardship, whereas the defendants will not be put to any hardship in the event the said documents are permitted to produced by the plaintiff.

¶51

The Trial Court has observed that the documents in question may not help the plaintiff to establish his case. Such an observation was totally unwarranted at the stage of considering an application seeking permission to produce documents which according to the plaintiff are relevant to prove the case of the plaintiff. In my considered view, the Trial Court

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:44696 WP No. 16134 of 2021

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

was, therefore, not justified in rejecting IA nos.60 & 61. Plaintiff has to recall PW-1 for the purpose of marking the documents. At any event, the defendants have a right to crossexamine PW-1 after he is examined in chief and the proposed documents are marked. Therefore, in my considered view, the order impugned cannot be sustained. Inconvenience caused to the defendants by filing application belatedly can be compensated monetarily. Accordingly, the following order:

¶56

Writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated dated 07.08.2021 passed on IA nos.60 & 61 in O.S.No.5362/2017 by the Court of XXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside. Consequently, the prayer made by the applicant in IA nos.60 & 61 are granted, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- payable by the plaintiff to the defendants before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing.

¶57

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶58

KK

Sri M Prakash v. Sri Shivanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Prakash v. Sri Shivanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. R. v. Mehaboob Sab Vs Thirumalamma Since Dead by Her Lrs., Sri. Kadirappa

K C Ravishanka Vs M/S Indian Bank

Smt. Anusuyamma Vs Smt. Girija

Akbar Ali Khan Vs Hussain Bi @ Bibijan

Mr Anjanappa Vs Sugada Bai

Jacintha Mathew Vs Rosalind Fernandes Alias Rosalind K a